Oral Answers to Questions

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked—

Corporate Governance

David Taylor: When the report of the review of corporate governance at the National Audit Office will be published; and if he will make a statement.

Austin Mitchell: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Public Accounts Commission. The NAO review of corporate governance is being led by John Tyner, former chief executive of the Financial Services Authority. He will report to the commission in the latter half of January, and the report will be published in February, as soon as the commission has had a chance to discuss and comment on it.

David Taylor: The NAO's weak track record in revealing corruption in some arms deals and the economic lunacies of the private finance initiative might be rooted in the opaque and cosy links that apparently exist between it and the private sector. Does my hon. Friend hope that this review will at last allow arm's length, objective reporting of those areas, fully to expose the activities of rapacious consultants and incompetent top civil servants, whose combined connivance is landing our nation with such murky, inflexible contracts and utterly prohibitive debts?

Austin Mitchell: My hon. Friend will realise that the art of answering parliamentary questions is to provide the necessary information while giving as little away as possible, and I come to that art a little late in life. However, I must tell him that all the points he raises are, in fact, the responsibility of the Public Accounts Committee rather than the Public Accounts Commission. I should add on behalf of the commission that we have found no evidence of impropriety in the expenses of the Comptroller and Auditor General. We have put the expenses on a new financial basis that aligns them with those of permanent secretaries. The NAO has committed itself to full transparency on hospitality received by the comptroller and his senior management board. All that hospitality information and expenses will now be published on the commission's website, which is a major advance.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Clergy (Security of Tenure)

Philip Hollobone: What assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the potential effect of the draft Ecclesiastical Officers (Terms of Service) Measure on the security of tenure of clergy.

Stuart Bell: The legislation to which the hon. Gentleman refers will improve the security of tenure of the clergy and ensure that they are able to exercise the duties of their offices competently.

Philip Hollobone: How would the hon. Gentleman reply to the following comments of my constituent, the Rev. Stephen Trott? He writes:
	"Common Tenure is just an empty title, devoid of any stated value, to be defined not by Parliament, which at present guarantees our rights, but by the Archbishops' Council. In return, every parish will have to hand over its parsonage house, and every incumbent will in due course lose their protection under the law, in return for"—
	only—
	"limited access to employment rights."

Stuart Bell: Father Trott is a constituent of the hon. Gentleman and a member of the Church Commissioners board of governors. He has not yet written to me on this subject, but I am sure he will shortly do so. At the heart of the reforms is the desire to give security to the 4,000 stipendiary and 3,000 non-stipendiary clergy who hold office under time-limited licences. The legislation gives clergy rights equivalent to those that employees have had under section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, as requested by the Government. I will be glad to take up the matter in relation to the Archbishops Council directly with Father Trott.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Anne McIntosh: What plans the Church Commissioners have to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide from the Church estate.

Stuart Bell: The commissioners and the other national Church institutions are committed to the Church's shrinking the footprint campaign, as part of which they are seeking to understand and reduce their energy consumption and promote environmental best practice.

Anne McIntosh: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, and I welcome the Archbishop of Canterbury's commitment to reducing the Church's carbon footprint. What impact are the increasing number of thefts of lead from church roofs and property having? Presumably, that is hampering efforts to reduce the carbon footprint, because the Church will incur considerable expense to pay for something for which there might be no budget.

Stuart Bell: The hon. Lady puts an intriguing question. The world economy is such that China's taking all the world's lead is pushing up prices in our country, and lead is being stripped off church roofs. That is an interesting phenomenon, and I might be able to answer that question later.
	As the hon. Lady has said, the shrinking the footprint campaign has the personal commitment of the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose presence at our parliamentary carol service yesterday evening was most appreciated. The General Synod supports this ambitious campaign. The Archbishop has said that
	"for the Church of the 21st century, good ecology is not an optional extra but a matter of justice. It is therefore central to what it means to be a Christian."

"Fair trade begins at home"

Robert Key: What response the Church Commissioners have received from the Government to the report "Fair trade begins at home" produced by the Church's ethical investment advisory group.

Stuart Bell: Following the report's publication on 5 November, it was sent to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and to Ministers responsible for food, farming and the rural economy. We have not yet received either a formal or informal response, but we shall be in touch again in the new year.

Robert Key: I hope that means that Ministers will be reading the report over Christmas. I hope that it will also be read by all retail managers in the food industry. Will the hon. Gentleman examine the website of the Farm Crisis Network, which is another initiative taken by the Church of England? In parallel with the Samaritans, it provides specialist advice to those in the rural community and to farmers, who are very hard hit at the moment, to encourage and help them through this difficult period.

Stuart Bell: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern. I know that he represents a large rural community and I congratulate him on representing the interests of farmers from that community. He will know that the Church shares some of the concerns outlined in the "Fair trade begins at home" report, which warns of the powers of the big supermarkets in putting farmers' livelihoods at risk. He will be pleased to learn that some of the commissioners' farmer tenants were involved in its production. Ministers have received a copy, and I shall ensure that one is placed in the House of Commons Library.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Electoral Register

John Robertson: What estimate the Electoral Commission has made of the numbers of students on the electoral register.

Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission informs me that students are not separately identified as a category on the electoral register, and that it has not made such an estimate.

John Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his answer, but I find it very disappointing. My information is that about one in five students fails to register. Does he agree that universities and halls of residence should take responsibility for handing out registration forms and ensuring that they are filled in?

Peter Viggers: The hon. Gentleman might be referring to the Electoral Commission's report "Understanding electoral registration", which said that the level of non-registration among students was about 22 per cent. The figure was based on a very small sample from the 2001 census data, no cross-check was done on whether students were registered at their parents' address and the actual number who are non-registered might be lower. I assure him that the Electoral Commission sees encouraging registration as one of its central duties, and it certainly encourages registration among the young and students.

David Howarth: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has come across another aspect of student registration that might well have caused a serious problem had a November election taken place. First-year students coming to university in late September and early October would have registered on the annual canvass, but that would not have got them on to the register in time for the election, whereas students who managed to get hold of a rolling registration form would have been registered in time. That would have caused immense confusion and anger at polling stations had an election been called in November. Does the Electoral Commission have any proposals to ensure that that potential problem does not become a reality?

Peter Viggers: The hon. Gentleman makes an important and detailed point. The Electoral Commission is focusing on its twin objectives of regulating party and election finance, and delivering well-run elections. One of the aspects that it is examining under the latter heading is the timing of registration, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Michael Weir: I should perhaps declare an interest, as I have a daughter who is at university. In my experience, halls of residence automatically register students on the electoral register—at least, they do so in Aberdeen. I campaigned in an inner-city constituency in the Scottish parliamentary elections, and I found that the problem is in the private rented sector, where the electoral roll is often woefully out of date and where no one who lives in a block of flats is on it—many of the people involved are students. Has the Electoral Commission considered whether that is because of the changes in the way in which people are put on the electoral register?

Peter Viggers: One point that the Electoral Commission has made strongly is that it recognises that the current system involves the head of household registering all those in the household. Of course the definition of "head of household" can vary—it can be based on residence or on halls of residence. The Electoral Commission has strongly urged the Government to move to a system of individual registration, and it regrets that they have so far failed to accept its recommendation.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Equity Investments

Hugh Bayley: What proportion of the Church's equity investments are in African companies.

Stuart Bell: The Commissioners do not currently directly own shares in any African listed companies.

Hugh Bayley: I know that my hon. Friend recognises that we in England have responsibilities to help the poor in Africa. Aid is important, but investment, especially in African-owned businesses, is the way to provide Africa with a sustainable means to enable the people to climb out of poverty. Would the Church of England consider establishing a venture capital fund in Africa, in part because of the very high returns that African investments currently provide?

Stuart Bell: My hon. Friend might like to know that we have exposure to emerging markets equities of some £180 million, or 5 per cent. of our total equities exposure, held predominantly in pooled investment vehicles that are invested mostly in Asia, eastern Europe and Latin America. There is, I have to admit, little underlying exposure to Africa—in fact, well under 1 per cent. of our total equities exposure. My hon. Friend's point is well made and I will certainly take it back to the commissioners.

Academy Sponsorship

Bob Russell: What discussions the Church Commissioners have had with the Department for Children, Schools and Families about Church sponsorship of academies.

Stuart Bell: The staff of the Archbishops Council's education division are in daily contact with the Department for Children, Schools and Families, at both ministerial and officer level, over the development of academies sponsored by the Church of England.

Bob Russell: As someone who had a Christian upbringing, albeit non-conformist—good non-conformist stock—may I suggest that the diocese of Chelmsford be advised that being involved in the closure of two community secondary schools and then imposing an Anglican academy in south Colchester is not the way to win hearts and minds?

Stuart Bell: All the Church of England academies are largely for local pupils and the majority have no faith criteria for admission. Church schools do not set out to convert pupils, but, rather, to nurture, affirm and challenge within a community founded on Christian values. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his educational background, will not disagree with that.

Places of Worship (Theft)

Mark Pritchard: What discussions the Church Commissioners have held with the Association of Chief Police Officers on ways of preventing theft from places of worship.

Stuart Bell: The Ecclesiastical Insurance Group, which insures most Church of England churches, has been discussing such thefts with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Archbishops Council, and provides advice on security measures. The commissioners keep a close eye on the discussions.

Mark Pritchard: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but with six churches a day being plundered for their lead, copper and even bells, is it not time that the police had a more pro-active and national strategy to deal with the issue? In the deanery of Edgmond and Shifnal in my constituency, more than £25,000 worth of lead has been stolen in just the past four months. That has got to stop and the police have to be more pro-active.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the House's attention to that serious and difficult problem. The Church Commissioners are talking with the Association of Chief Police Officers and take the matter extremely seriously. We have a dilemma in the Church, because we believe that churches should be open, active and well visited, and that that is more likely to deter theft or vandalism. The Churches Tourism Association is working to help to keep churches open and improve accessibility. Without being too humorous, let us hope that China imports less lead, the price comes down and such thievery is not necessary.

Christopher Fraser: Norfolk is one of the worst-hit areas for the theft of lead from church roofs. Why are separate statistics not available for that offence? Does he agree that it would be useful to record instances of that offence separately so that the Government may appreciate the full scale of the problem?

Stuart Bell: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I should point out that the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group has provided a security marking system free of charge to all churches as well as advice on security matters. In addition to the question of church lead, churches should also consider locking away their valuables, fixing furniture and paintings and encouraging local people to visit the church as part of their daily routine.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Prostitution

Tony Lloyd: What her policy is on the prosecution of offences associated with prostitution and kerb crawling.

Vera Baird: Our policy is to consider alternatives to prosecution to help prostitutes to find a route out of prostitution while emphasising the need to arrest and prosecute kerb crawlers. That is part of a strategy to focus enforcement action on the purchasers who create the demand.

Tony Lloyd: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer, which I find reassuring. In areas such as my constituency, where there are two locations where street prostitution is known, people find kerb crawlers to be the nuisance. Many people are sympathetic to the view that driving prostitutes further underground puts women who are already at risk at even greater risk. Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Government's strategy is not to make the prostitute's position even more dangerous?

Vera Baird: I can confirm that. I compliment my hon. Friend for taking a long interest in the care of women in prostitution in the two areas of his constituency. I completely agree that crackdowns on kerb crawlers must be carried out in conjunction with diverting prostitutes through appropriate local projects. I am impressed by the strategy employed in my area of Cleveland, where referral workers are available in custody suites and work closely with police and vice units to ensure that women who are stopped by the police can be referred to appropriate services straight away.

Philip Hollobone: Next year, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), will visit Sweden and the Netherlands to look at measures introduced to tackle the demand side of the prostitution equation. Will the Solicitor-General consider accompanying him?

Vera Baird: I intend to go with my hon. Friend to Sweden to look at those measures and to do the best comparative study that we can, so that we can fully inform ourselves. The hon. Gentleman was on the Committee that considered the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, so he will have heard my hon. Friend announce that we will review the way in which we tackle demand to see whether we need to be tougher. That trip and other research will feed into the review.

Fiona Mactaggart: Has my hon. and learned Friend seen the research report entitled "It's just like going to the supermarket"? It suggests that our interventions with men who buy sex are not particularly effective, and that it would be more effective to reduce the normalisation of the commercialisation of sexual relationships that underpins those men's belief that they are entitled to buy women's bodies.

Vera Baird: Yes, I have seen that research. Indeed, I attended the launch in Whitechapel. The report contains interviews with a range of different men who use prostitutes. At times during their interviews, they referred to it as being just like going to the supermarket to buy any other commodity. They said that they would not be deterred if it were a criminal offence, but different research suggests that they would be. We must see what the best approaches are, and that is why we are reviewing demand.

Violence Against Women

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: What the policy of the Crown Prosecution Service is on prosecutions involving violence against women.

Vera Baird: The Crown Prosecution Services recognises the devastating impact that violence against women can have on victims, their families and communities and, more broadly, on the drive towards equality for women. We will prosecute such offences robustly, and, to that end, the CPS is consulting on its violence against women strategy, which sets out how it will improve co-ordination and the prosecution response.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I thank the Solicitor-General for that answer, but we need to persuade women victims of violence to come forward, bring charges and give evidence if we are to achieve successful prosecutions. In my constituency, we have an excellent track record, with many organisations supporting women to do just that. In the summer, I visited the family justice centre in Croydon, where those agencies are collocated in the same building with police, social services and housing services. Does my hon. and learned Friend think that we should promote new ways of working that will encourage more women to come forward and give evidence so that we can achieve more successful prosecutions?

Vera Baird: Yes, I do, and the CPS has been in the vanguard of that approach. Its deliberate policy is to have local prosecutors engage with local voluntary organisations that support women, so that places that are likely to be the first ports of call for victims of domestic violence can be reassured that the CPS is right behind them. My hon. Friend will know that we now have a system of specialist domestic violence courts that are much more understanding of the context in which domestic violence takes place. In addition, there are now a large number of independent domestic violence advocates who befriend a woman once she makes a complaint and who stay beside her all the way through proceedings. We have made progress, and the CPS is truly at the forefront of what we are doing.

Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry) is absolutely right in what she says. Violence against women is alien to everything that is decent, but will the Solicitor-General accept that the punishment in such cases must be severe if it is to deter violence? I believe that that is the only way for society to show that it is totally opposed to violence against women.

Vera Baird: I am very pleased indeed to get such wholehearted support from such a distinguished Member of the House. I agree completely that sentencing must be appropriately harsh so that the very clear message is sent out that domestic violence—and all violence against women—will not be tolerated. There is no offence of domestic violence, so any punishment will depend on the level of assault that finally brings someone to court. However, the domestic violence courts are fully aware of the context in which such crimes occur, and they well understand that a woman is likely to have suffered many assaults before she makes a complaint. I am sure that they contextualise their approach to perpetrators in that way.

Ann Cryer: Although lots of women come forward and report crimes of violence against them, many subsequently withdraw the complaint. Do the domestic violence courts encourage women to stay with the claims that they make, and not withdraw them?

Vera Baird: Yes, they do. The role of the independent domestic violence advocate is literally to befriend the person making the complaint and then to drive the prosecution in the sense of making sure that her interests are represented at all times. The IDVA also tries to take from the complainant the burden of other problems caused by reporting domestic violence. For instance, the woman involved might have to move house or her children, or she might need help with child care if previously her in-laws had helped with that. She can be relieved of all such burdens by the IDVA, who will be a professional with good networks in the public services. It is hoped that a claimant will be sustained by that support and have the energy needed to take a prosecution through.

Attorney-General

Simon Hughes: What recent representations she has received on the future role of the Attorney-General; and if she will make a statement.

Vera Baird: The Government's consultation on the Attorney-General closed on 30 November. We received about 50 written responses and the Attorney-General held a number of seminars and meetings with interested parties. That included a useful session with Members of this House and the House of Lords, to which the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) contributed. The Government will consider all the views expressed and will announce their conclusions in the near future.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General for the consultation, which was very effective and inclusive. The Law Officers often give the Government advice as a matter of course about the interpretation of the law or the meaning of legislative proposals that is easy to disclose. However, on other occasions Ministers present policy propositions to Parliament that they argue are justified because advice has been taken from the Law Officers. Does the Solicitor-General accept that there is now an overwhelmingly strong case that such advice should be published automatically? The most obvious recent, public and famous example of that is the advice that the Government received about the legality of the invasion of Iraq.

Vera Baird: I have two points. First, nobody could possibly expect me to pre-empt a consultation that finished only two weeks ago, so I shall not do so. Secondly, the position is far from the way the hon. Gentleman chooses to couch it. No Minister ought to disclose that there has ever been legal advice from the Law Officers, let alone what it was.

WOMEN AND EQUALITY

The Minister for Women and Equality was asked—

Imprisonment

Madeleine Moon: What recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on alternatives to imprisonment for women.

Barbara Follett: I have had many discussions with ministerial colleagues on this subject. As my hon. Friend knows, last week the Government published our response to Baroness Corston's review, in which we agreed to promote the effective use of community orders and set up projects, which will report next April, to look at alternatives to custody and review the future of the women's prison estate.

Madeleine Moon: In a report for the Prison Reform Trust, the New Economics Foundation estimated that savings of £18 million could be made if community-based sentences were available for the 2,000 non-violent women offenders who have been imprisoned. Will my hon. Friend hold cross-Government discussions so that we can submit to the review next year a full understanding of the costs and the effect on women and their children? We need to take into account the costs of health, housing, benefits and education, and care costs for children, to show the global cost of imprisoning non-violent women.

Barbara Follett: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about the issue and I am aware of her work for a women's prison in Wales, where there is none. It is one of the issues addressed in Baroness Corston's review, and it is why the National Offender Management Service put in a bid to set up Turnaround—the demonstrator project for women offenders in Wales. I shall do all I can to ensure that the costs of imprisoning non-violent women for short periods are made as transparent as possible.

Philip Davies: Does the Minister agree that the courts should treat men and women equally when sentencing them, and that the best alternative to sending women to prison is for them not to commit crime in the first place?

Barbara Follett: Historically, men and women have not been treated as equals. At present, women make up 6 per cent. of the total prison population and there are not enough appropriate women's prisons. I value Baroness Corston's report, because it could lead us to a new way of treating women offenders.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: When women are given a custodial sentence, often it is not just the women who are punished but their children, too. Children often end up in care, and as a disproportionate number of women in the prison system have been through the care system themselves we could be perpetuating a cycle. We must look at non-custodial sentences for non-persistent, non-violent women offenders to keep families together and maintain their stability.

Barbara Follett: I agree. At present, 8,000 children a year have their living arrangements disrupted by their mother's imprisonment, even if it is only a short period. That is why Baroness Corston's review recommended the use of intensive community sentences, and I am committed to them.

Women (Political Life)

Katy Clark: What steps the Government are taking to increase the representation of women in political life.

Harriet Harman: The Government are committed to ensuring that our democracy is representative, and that means in local councils, the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, the European Parliament and the House. The most effective policy for increasing women's representation has been making it lawful to have women-only shortlists for selection.

Katy Clark: My right hon. and learned Friend will be well aware that considerable strides have been made on this side of the House in increasing the representation of women in this place. However, unfortunately, large parts of Britain have still never had a woman representing them directly in this place, in a devolved Assembly or at council level. I should be grateful for her thoughts on what further can be done by Government and Parliament to ensure that women are better represented.

Harriet Harman: We are committed to extending the legal provision that allows political parties, if they so choose, to increase women's representation in our democracy by allowing all-women shortlists. When I was first in the House of Commons, there were only 10 Labour women Members of Parliament, but because we used all-women shortlists we now have 96 strong Labour women Members of Parliament, who speak up for women in this country and champion issues such as child care and tackling domestic violence. The Conservative party, which eschews all-women shortlists, has increased its number of women Members of Parliament from 13 when I was first elected to the sum total of 17 now. I want to see more women Members on both sides of the House, but until the Conservatives have all-women shortlists, they will be doomed to fail.

Mark Harper: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Lady would like to congratulate the council in my constituency. After the recent local elections and a stunning Tory victory, nearly half the Conservative councillors are women—without using all-women shortlists—a woman leads the council and there is an excellent female chairman. Will the right hon. and learned Lady congratulate the Conservatives in Forest of Dean on that excellent performance?

Harriet Harman: I do want to see more women in local government. I warmly support all the women in local government, who work not only in the economy and public services and among their families, but in the community as local representatives.

Peter Bone: Congratulate them.

Harriet Harman: I will congratulate them. My hon. Friend the Minister for Equality and I are concerned to ensure the proper representation of women of black and Asian ethnic origin. Black and Asian women are chronically under-represented. There are something like 176 women black and Asian councillors in the whole of England and Wales; if black and Asian communities were properly represented, there would be nearer 1,000. We have to ensure that there is proper gender representation in our councils, in Parliament and in the devolved Assemblies, but we also have to ensure diverse ethnic representation, so that this House reflects the communities that we seek to represent.

Fiona Mactaggart: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that next year is the 90th anniversary of women's suffrage, which you, Mr. Speaker, are generously hosting a reception to mark. Will she publish proposals for using the 90th anniversary to highlight the contribution that women have made to public life and the initiatives that she will take to increase the number of women in public life?

Harriet Harman: I welcome my hon. Friend's suggestion and I will do exactly that. It is not just the numbers that are important. The women Members of Parliament who were elected in 1997, and also in 2001 and 2005, have made a difference to the political agenda discussed in the House. I can remember when there was virtually no discussion of maternity leave, domestic violence, or support for families caring for older relatives. Those things are particular preoccupations of women and their families. Women's representation has meant that people's lives are reflected much more accurately in the House of Commons.

Jo Swinson: Some women are put off becoming MPs because they think that the House has a rather sexist, male-dominated culture, and that the job is all about making speeches and engaging in aggressive debate, although that is actually a small part of the job. Does the Minister agree that, although all parties must continue their own efforts to get more women elected, there is also a need for a cross-party initiative to communicate better the fact that elected politics can be incredibly enjoyable and rewarding, and to change some of those negative perceptions?

Harriet Harman: I think the important thing is to say to women and men that they should recognise that it is a great honour and privilege to be a Member of Parliament, to represent a constituency and to work for progressive change. It is important that the House should be a team of women and men working together, as the Government are.

Rape

Sharon Hodgson: What recent discussions she has had with the Solicitor-General on the Government's consultation "Convicting Rapists and Protecting Women".

Barbara Follett: I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues and the Solicitor-General on the subject. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government recently published their response to the consultation, in which we agreed to legislate to admit videoed statements and hearsay evidence in trials, and find ways to dispel the myths about rape that can influence juries. All those measures are designed to encourage complainants to sustain prosecutions.

Sharon Hodgson: Rape victims in my constituency are well supported by Rape Crisis support, but concerns have been expressed about the future funding for such support. What discussions has my hon. Friend had with colleagues about how that funding will be sustained in the future?

Barbara Follett: Ministers—and this Minister—are very concerned about the issue. I have had, and will have more, meetings with colleagues to discuss the sustainability of funding for Rape Crisis centres. I have also met representatives of the Rape Crisis network to discuss its future funding needs.

Peter Bone: Young teenagers who are brought into this country by traffickers, and who are then released by the police, are sometimes worried about giving evidence. Will the Government bring forward a proposal for a number of safe houses across the country in which those women could be protected, and which would allow them to take part in future prosecutions?

Barbara Follett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that good suggestion, which I will raise in the many discussions that I hope to have on the issue in the new year.

Stewart Jackson: I heard the Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson). The Minister will no doubt be aware that on 8 January, the funding for Peterborough Rape Crisis counselling group will end after 20 years, putting in jeopardy the fantastic work that the group does for women and girls who have suffered from sexual abuse or sexual crimes. Perhaps she could have a word with her colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the funding continues, and that Peterborough people, particularly women and girls, have a service dealing with that most traumatic crime.

Barbara Follett: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. In my dual capacity as Minister for Equality and Minister for the East of England, I will have discussions with the Peterborough Rape Crisis centre, and I will look at the local and national funding issues.

Theresa May: The hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson) raised an important issue about the funding for Rape Crisis centres, which was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson). My constituents in Berkshire have no Rape Crisis centre in Berkshire, but they access one in High Wycombe, whose funding is also under threat. It may have to close next March. The Minister for Women and Equality has said:
	"If the Tories come up with good ideas, we will incorporate them into our policies."
	We are committed to providing funding to Rape Crisis centres on a three-year basis, to give them greater stability in their funding. Will the Government now adopt our very sensible idea?

Barbara Follett: When the Government came to power 10 years ago, the funding for Rape Crisis centres was £500,000 a year; we have increased that to £3 million. However, I hear what the right hon. Lady is saying, and I will consider the matter in discussions with colleagues.

Government Policy

Christopher Fraser: What recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on co-ordinating Government policy on women and equality issues.

Barbara Follett: Once again, I have regular discussions with colleagues across Government on that matter. We are working constructively together to implement the Government's priorities for women, and I am committed to developing a cross-Government strategy on equalities and implementing our equalities public service agreement.

Christopher Fraser: The women and equality unit was previously part of the Department of Trade and Industry. It was then transferred to the Department for Communities and Local Government. Now it is responsible to the newly created Government Equalities Office, which is an offshoot of the Department for Work and Pensions. Given this game of pass the parcel, does the Minister accept that the public do not believe that the Government take the issue seriously? When will responsibility move again?

Barbara Follett: I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. What is important is the work that we do, not the structures within Government, which is an arcane and byzantine subject in which most members of the public are not in the least interested.

Flexible Working

Ben Chapman: What steps she is taking to encourage workplaces to offer flexible working to full-time staff and to help with childcare arrangements during school holidays.

Barbara Follett: We have given over 6 million people—parents of young and disabled children and carers of adults—the right to request flexible working, and more than doubled the number of registered child care places. We recently announced that we will extend the right to request flexible working to the parents of older children.

Ben Chapman: But is my hon. Friend satisfied that charges for child care are always reasonable? What about the arrangements during the school holidays?

Barbara Follett: As the mother of five, I understand the problems faced by parents during holidays; that was the moment when my heart sank. We have asked local authorities to assess whether they have sufficient child care for working parents. That, I hope, will help to address part of the problem.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Members' Salaries

Nicholas Winterton: When she next plans to bring forward proposals for hon. and right hon. Members' salaries.

Helen Goodman: An announcement on the Senior Salaries Review Body review of parliamentary pay, pensions and allowances will be made in the new year.

Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply—not terribly helpful, but a little helpful. The Government have had the SSRB report for six months. Why have they delayed publishing it so that the House can debate the recommendations? As a long-serving Member of the House, I am concerned about the position of all Members of the House and their salary, which should be dealt with fairly. Bearing in mind the fact that the increases over the past five years have been below the retail prices index and the average earnings index, is it not appropriate that the recommendations of the SSRB should be put to the House so that the House can reach a decision?

Helen Goodman: I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration, but I have looked back over what happened in previous years. It generally takes three to six months. That is because all Governments want to give the SSRB report proper consideration. The hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members will have an opportunity to make their views known in the debate in the new year.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that I have already made my mind up on the matter? We had a discussion about it last week in business questions. I find it odd that Tory MPs keep raising the matter. I am more concerned about nurses on 2 per cent. and police officers on 1.9 per cent. I have a good suggestion: make sure that the document goes to the Home Secretary so that she can have a look at it. Then she can put it where it belongs.

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to table amendments before the debate. He is absolutely right that the Government's pay policy is designed to be fair and affordable and to keep inflation down.

Parliamentary Questions

David Amess: What assessment she has made of the quality of Ministers' responses to written parliamentary questions.

Philip Dunne: What assessment she has made of the quality of Ministers' answers to written parliamentary questions.

Helen Goodman: Ministers are fully aware of their responsibilities to the House in respect of written questions. The Leader of the House keeps the quality of Ministers' answers to written parliamentary questions under continuous review.

David Amess: That answer will not do. The hon. Lady may treat the general public with contempt until the next general election, but the House of Commons deserves a better response than that. The hon. Lady, together with the Leader of the House, knows perfectly well that the quality of responses is appalling. Only too often, Departments answer questions that they wish they had been asked, rather than those they actually were asked. I am asking the hon. Lady's colleague, the Leader of the House, to undertake a proper review of the quality of Departments' responses. If the right hon. and learned Lady finds that the quality is poor, she should do something about it.

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; answers must be accurate, timely and truthful. That is fully set out in the ministerial code, which the Prime Minister reissued in the summer and which reflects the resolution of the House from 1997. The hon. Gentleman should also be aware that the Procedure Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into written questions. Its terms of reference are:
	"To consider the procedures, scope and rules governing the tabling...of parliamentary questions for written answer;
	To examine the reasons for, and the consequences of, the recent rise in the number of such questions; and
	To consider the procedures for the answering of such questions and what opportunities are available to Members to pursue answers with which they are not satisfied."
	We look forward to receiving that report and to responding to any recommendations that are made.

Philip Dunne: Is the Minister aware of the inconsistent treatment of questions asked by Members of this House? I am thinking in particular of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who on some occasions will choose to answer colleagues' questions but on others will choose to send them to the agency concerned. At the moment, the Institute for Animal Health is being dealt with very poorly; it is expected to respond to some questions, although the Minister has answered others.

Helen Goodman: I was not aware of that particular problem. If the hon. Gentleman writes with specific examples, we will be happy to look into them.

David Taylor: Long-serving colleagues tell me that although the quality of written answers has not deteriorated since 1997, it has not improved to any great extent. What advice would my hon. Friend give those treated with replies that are cursory to the point of disdain in trying to hide information—replies, for instance, to questions about the entertainment and hospitality record of senior civil servants with the private sector, which I have been pursuing for some weeks now? It should not be necessary to obtain an Adjournment debate or engage in extensive correspondence with Ministers to pursue such issues, should it?

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend, a particularly assiduous Member of the House, is right. I am sure he is fully aware of all the routes that can be explored—further questions, writing to the Minister, contacting the Leader of the House and referring the issue to the Public Administration Committee. However, I agree that that should not be necessary.

Simon Hughes: We will, of course, wait for the Procedure Committee's report and recommendations. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), for example, has given evidence that fewer than half of questions on tax credits got proper answers, and the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) has said that fewer than a quarter of the questions tabled for a named day to the Ministry of Defence were answered on the named day. Performance must improve next year. To link to an earlier question, would the Deputy Leader of the House consider performance-related pay for Ministers that would depend on their performance in answering questions to Parliament?

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman will be free to make that suggestion in January. As we consider the performance of different Departments, it is important that we take account of the fact that it can vary over time, depending on the sorts of issues that Members are interested in and whether Departments have to answer a particularly large number of questions. One of the things that the Procedure Committee will address is the impact of the doubling or trebling of written questions in the past 20 years.

Oral Statements

John Bercow: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the procedures for oral statements by Ministers.

Helen Goodman: Oral statements are one of the most valued and effective parts of the House's proceedings. The Government have no plans to propose any changes to present procedures, although we are always open to representations from hon. Members on this, as on other matters.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House, but I fear that she has not yet caught up with herself, for there has at least been one change recently, and that is the move to notify right hon. and hon. Members some days in advance of the intended date of statements. May I, however, put it to her that the change will remain in practice more symbolic than real if the Government continue their usual incorrigible practice of telling the world's media the contents of statements well before they inform the House? Would it not concentrate minds if such conduct constituted a breach of the ministerial code?

Helen Goodman: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, that was, as he says, an innovation made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice only at the beginning of this year. I think that if the hon. Gentleman looks at the facts he will find that under this Government there has not been a large number of pre-announcements to the media.  [ Laughter. ] There has not. If he has specific examples, perhaps he could give them to me.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Can the Speaker bring a few examples?

Theresa May: I am happy to oblige the House myself with an example that occurred only this week. On Tuesday, the Children, Schools and Families Secretary told  The Guardian that every secondary school pupil would have a personal mentor, told  The Times that head teachers will have to work with social workers and the police, and told  The Daily Telegraph that he would use e-mail and text to monitor pupil attendance. Then he came to the House to make a statement. If Ministers respect Parliament as she and the Leader of the House say that they do, why was this widely leaked before it was announced to the House, and why do Ministers behave like this every single week?

Helen Goodman: If the right hon. Lady is complaining about the media putting together well researched news stories on the basis of consultation documents and White Papers that have already been issued, that is a matter for her. Had she been in the Chamber to hear the Secretary of State's statement, she would have known that the House was the first to hear about the allocation of more than £200 million for graduates in nurseries, the decision to allow Ofsted to lead a review on special educational needs, the proposal to spend £220 million on play facilities in 3,500 playgrounds across the country, and the decision to make all schools zero carbon by 2016.

Voting Rights

David Evennett: What the Government's policy is on right hon. and hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies voting on matters relating to England where responsibility for such matters in Scotland has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

Helen Goodman: The Prime Minister set out the Government's policy to the House on 3 July. The Government do not accept that there should be any discrimination in the rights of hon. Members to take part in the business before the House. English votes for English laws would lead to the break-up of the Union. This Government believe in the Union and will do nothing to harm it. Constitutional issues are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice.

David Evennett: I am naturally disappointed by the Minister's response. As a great supporter of the Union, does she share my concerns about the growing sense of unfairness felt among English voters about this issue? Surely the Government should be doing something to address it for the sake of our democracy.

Helen Goodman: I think that the hon. Gentleman tabled his question before the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) made his speech in Edinburgh on Monday, in which he said:
	"Better an imperfect union than a broken one...if it should ever come to a choice between constitutional perfection and the preservation of our nation, I choose our United Kingdom."

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Food Allergies

Jo Swinson: What policies the Refreshment Department has to cater for people with food allergies.

Nick Harvey: Dishes suitable for those with gluten allergies are identified and indicated on all menus, as are dishes suitable for vegetarians, and healthy options. If applicable, menus will state that dishes contain nuts or traces of nuts, and further training for all catering staff on allergen awareness will begin in March and run through till May of next year.

Jo Swinson: I appreciate that reply, but like so many restaurants and catering outlets these days, the House Refreshment Department covers itself with a legal disclaimer on every menu that says:
	"All of our dishes are prepared in kitchens where nuts are present but not all dishes contain nuts as part of their ingredients. Our staff will be happy to provide further details of dish ingredients".
	Given that well over 50 people working on the Commons estate have a nut allergy, is it not ridiculous to expect them to ask every day which dishes have nuts? Would it not be easier to have a small symbol on the menu indicating those dishes?

Nick Harvey: I am aware that my hon. Friend is among those who suffer from nut allergies. The House is developing its processes and practices in consultation with experts in the field. If my hon. Friend has some particular point she would like to suggest that would improve the practice, I will be pleased to arrange a meeting with the director of catering.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Parliamentary Questions

David Jones: What assessment she has made of the quality of Ministers' answers to written parliamentary questions.

Helen Goodman: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier.

David Jones: About three weeks ago, I tabled a question to the Secretary of State for Wales asking him how frequently he meets the Deputy First Minister of Wales, and on how many occasions he has done so since the conclusion of the all-Wales accord. The answer I received was:
	"I have met the Deputy First Minister of Wales on several occasions since that date."—[ Official Report, 27 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 286W.]
	That answer was not terribly helpful, but unfortunately it is not untypical of the sort of thing that we receive these days. Is this a manifestation of deliberate obfuscation on the part of Government, or is it simple idleness? It must be one or the other.

Helen Goodman: I simply do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. If he would like a more specific answer, perhaps he should write to the Secretary of State.

Capital Gains Tax

Vincent Cable: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to you for agreeing to enable this urgent question to be put, and the purpose of putting the request in this form—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman would just ask the question.

Vincent Cable: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer make a statement on the position in relation to capital gains tax policy?

Alistair Darling: Let me answer the hon. Gentleman's question. The Government's position on the reform of capital gains tax was set out in the pre-Budget report on 9 October. However, I have subsequently received representations from a number of organisations and individuals with whom I have been consulting, and as a result of which a wide range of proposals have been made to me. Because those proposals cover a wide range of approaches, and in some cases are quite complex, I think it desirable to have further discussions with those groups before I finalise my proposals. It is not now going to be possible to conclude that process until the new year. I can tell the House that when I am ready to make proposals, I will come to the House and make a statement in the usual way.
	For the sake of completeness, I understand that the hon. Gentleman, who is the acting leader of the Liberal Democrat party, was moved to ask this question because he saw on today's Order Paper notice of a written ministerial statement on Finance Bill measures. Perhaps I can tell the House that those measures relate to two types of corporation tax avoidance involving the leasing of plant machinery, such as combine harvesters, tractors and so on, which had a potential tax loss of hundreds of millions of pounds. The written ministerial statement had nothing whatever to do with capital gains tax.

Vincent Cable: May I explain to the Chancellor why the matter is urgent? It appears that the Prime Minister, no less, and the Chancellor have been separately briefing national newspapers about imminent changes to the legislation. Surely this House should be told about that. I was further prompted by the fact that I understood that the Federation of Small Businesses and the Confederation of British Industry have booked rooms this afternoon in order to announce changes communicated to them by the Government. It may be, as is often the case, that there is a terrible breakdown in communication between the Government and the business organisations. It may be that the Chancellor simply did not wish to communicate his findings to the House first. That is the source of the urgency. Does not he agree that the Government made a serious error in not consulting business organisations before announcing the pre-Budget report statement, that that failure to consult lies behind an enormous amount of ill will in the business community and that his standing with business is roughly comparable with that of the Home Secretary with the Police Federation?
	Will the Chancellor clarify whether the Government still intend to proceed with their proposal to abolish taper relief, which was a central feature of their policy? Was not the reasoning behind the proposal that it would tackle a specific anomaly in relation to private equity funds? It was realised, once the 10p rate was abolished, that private equity partners would pay less—in some cases, a lower rate of tax than their low-paid employees. The Government introduced the far-reaching change to deal with that. However, is not it also the case that the anomaly remains? The private equity partners still pay a lower rate of tax than their low-paid employees. In the process of introducing those changes, did not the Government create a set of anomalies whereby, for example, entrepreneurs now pay a much higher rate of tax—18 per cent. rather than 10 per cent.—and second home owners can pay a lower rate of tax? Those anomalies have created a great deal of anxiety and concern in the business community.
	Will the Chancellor confirm that the Government intend to proceed with the abolition of taper relief? In doing that, have the Government now accepted that their policy in 1998, which was strongly opposed at the time by me and my colleagues and the Conservatives, who appear to have done a U-turn on the matter, was misguided and introduced excessive complexity into the system?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is beginning to debate the matter as if it were a statement when it is an urgent question. I think that we must now let the Chancellor respond.

Alistair Darling: Despite what the hon. Gentleman says, his question was not prompted by the booking of rooms. In the normal way, when a request for an urgent question is made, Mr. Speaker has to consider it. The hon. Gentleman saw a reference to a written ministerial statement on the Order Paper. I simply point out that it was made to plug a loophole in relation to corporation tax; it had nothing to do with capital gains tax.
	The hon. Gentleman asked many questions about capital gains tax. The Government's position is as I set it out. We have received a wide range of proposals, and helpful discussions have taken place. I want to ensure that we get those things right and I intend to do that.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. With an urgent question, I have to hear what the appropriate Minister has to say. The Chancellor's answer leads me to conclude that I will not open up the subject to prolonged questions.  [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) keeps calm, I will, of course, call Front Benchers.

George Osborne: The Chancellor of the Exchequer pretends that it is all a mistake. However, he told the CBI conference on 27 November:
	"We are working with the CBI and other business organisations to listen to what you have to say. I expect to publish final proposals in the next three weeks."
	The Chancellor has told us for the first time today that he will not publish those details until the new year, although, as the leader of the Liberal Democrats said, business organisations expected them in the next couple of days.
	Is not it the Chancellor's final humiliation that he has to defend at the Dispatch Box his first and only original tax proposals when everyone knows that, in the next couple of weeks, he will have to announce major concessions and U-turns, not least because the Prime Minister went behind his back and briefed the newspapers? In the meantime, thousands of small businesses and employee share owners do not know what to do or what the position will be next April. He knows what the concessions will be. Why does not he admit what they are and that he has lost, hoist the white flag and say, "I surrender"?

Alistair Darling: Nice try. I had hoped to be in a position to announce final proposals, but for the reasons that I have stated that is not now possible. However, I will come to the House, as I always do on these occasions, when I am ready to make my proposals.

Business of the House

Theresa May: May I ask the Leader of the House to give its forthcoming business?

Harriet Harman: The business for the week commencing 17 December will be:
	Monday 17 December—There will be a statement on the European Council. There will also be a statement on the Poynter review, followed by Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions Bill.
	Tuesday 18 December—Motion on the Christmas recess Adjournment.
	The business for the week commencing 7 January 2008 will be:
	Monday 7 January—Second Reading of the Pensions Bill.
	Tuesday 8 January—Opposition Day [5th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Wednesday 9 January—Remaining stages of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.
	Thursday 10 January—Topical debate: Subject to be announced, followed by a general debate on armed forces personnel.
	Friday 11 January—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 14 January will include:
	Monday 14 January—Second Reading of the Education and Skills Bill.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the first week back will be:
	Thursday 10 January—A debate on the report from the Home Affairs Committee on Police Funding.
	Through you, Mr. Speaker, may I extend the warm wishes of all hon. Members to the Clerks of the House, the Officers of the House, the catering team, the cleaners, the police, the doorkeepers and all who keep the House running smoothly? A happy Christmas to one and all.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the future business. I should like to join her in wishing you, Mr. Speaker, all the staff in the House who provide us with support and all right hon. and hon. Members a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.
	The right hon. and learned Lady said that there would be a debate on the armed forces on Thursday 10 January, but, given the topical debate on that day, we will have less than half a day for that important subject. It seems that we will now have a part-time debate for a part-time Secretary of State for Defence. Will she rearrange the business so that we can have a full-time debate on the armed forces?
	Last week I suggested that the right hon. and learned Lady should select the housing market as the subject for this week's topical debate. If she looks at the front pages of today's newspapers, she will see that it is not only a topical issue, but an extremely worrying one for millions for families. Will she now commit to a debate on the economic slow-down, and the problems in the banking industry and their effects on the housing market?
	Last weekend the Prime Minister went to Basra, where he promised that the troops would be home by Christmas. Why did he not make a proper statement about that to the House? How many troops will come home? When will they come home? Will they go back if there is trouble in Basra? How many troops will stay to train Iraqi forces? It is to answer questions such as those and many more that we need a statement. Every week the Leader of House tells us that she puts Parliament first; every week her colleagues, from the Prime Minister down, treat Parliament with disdain.
	The Pensions Minister and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions want to compensate the 125,000 people who lost their savings after their pension schemes went bust, but the Prime Minister and the Chancellor appear to have blocked them. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Cross-Bench Peers, Labour MPs and Peers, Ros Altmann, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and now the Work and Pensions Secretary all now believe that those innocent people deserve full compensation. They did the right thing and saved for their pensions, but lost everything through no fault of their own, so will the Work and Pensions Secretary make a statement on why the Government refuse to compensate fully those innocent victims?
	Some 89 Labour MPs have signed a motion calling for the Government to honour the police pay award recommended by the Police Arbitration Tribunal. According to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, 10 Ministers oppose the Home Secretary's policy. Police authorities in England and Wales have already budgeted to meet the cost and the Police Federation has called it "a betrayal of trust", so can we have a debate in Government time on the breakdown in the crucial relationship between the police and the Home Secretary?
	On Europe, the Prime Minister said this morning:
	"I think you'll find we are leading the way."
	However, he is reluctantly making his way to Lisbon today to sign the renamed constitution, explicitly breaking his manifesto promise not to sign without a referendum. He is too frightened to let the people decide, and too frightened to be photographed with the other Heads of Government. Is this really what the Prime Minister means by "leading the way"?

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Lady mentioned the debate on the armed forces on Thursday 10 January, and the topical debate on the same day. I would say two things in response. First, she supported the introduction of topical debates, as did the whole House. I believe that they are going to be very important. Secondly, we have five days' debate on defence as well as Defence oral questions and other statements that are made from time to time. Defence and our armed services are of importance at all times to Members on both sides of the House, and we ensure that they are debated regularly and that they remain at the forefront of the concerns of the House.
	On the housing market, the right hon. Lady will know that it is important for that market that we have low inflation, and that people can pay their mortgages because they are able to remain in work and because interest rates are low. She will also know that it is important for that market that there is affordable housing, and that means that there should be a greater supply of housing. If she is as concerned as she says she is, I hope that the Opposition will support our Housing and Regeneration Bill, which will make the biggest possible contribution to the housing market.
	The right hon. Lady asked a number of questions about the Prime Minister and Iraq. Perhaps she will remember that, only yesterday at Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister answered questions about Iraq, as he does nearly every Wednesday at this Dispatch Box. Indeed, he also made a statement on Afghanistan.
	On pensions, the right hon. Lady will know that we have just concluded deliberation in this House on one Pensions Bill, and that our legislative programme contains another pensions Bill. She raised the question of the police pay award, and I want to pay tribute to the police for their important and courageous work. She will know that it is Government policy to ensure that we deal with police pay within the overall context of the Government's public sector pay policy.
	The right hon. Lady raised a range of issues about Europe. She will know that, because the Prime Minister believes in the importance of the House, he was answering questions before the Liaison Committee this morning. He cannot be in two places at once, so he has answered the Committee's questions and he is now travelling to sign the treaty. She then raised a whole load of other spurious questions about Europe—I know that this is the festive season, but this is supposed to be business questions, not panto.

Gordon Prentice: It is perfectly clear that the Government are not going to move on the vexed question of police pay. I am very sympathetic to the position of the police, because the matter has been to arbitration. How would my friend describe the meaning of arbitration in this context?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend will know that it is the responsibility of the Home Secretary to set the level of police pay. He will also be aware that negotiations and discussions are taking place on a new mechanism for setting police pay fairly; more information will no doubt be given to the House on that in due course. He will also know that, because of the importance that the Government place on the police, there has been an increase in police pay of 39 per cent. since 1997, and justly so. That is 9 per cent. above the rate of inflation. Police numbers are also increasing. There is no doubt that the Government place huge value on the work of the police in this country.

Simon Hughes: I was tempted to say in response to the earlier reply from the Leader of the House that we could have both business questions and panto, which might be more acceptable.
	I am grateful for the announcement of a debate on police funding on 10 January. I join the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House in extending my best wishes and thanks not just to the police, but to all Officers of the House and, of course, to you, Mr. Speaker, as we approach Christmas and the new year.
	May we have a debate about the growing number of Government policy reviews? After the recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families of four more such reviews, they are now up to 31. As Tony Travers said this week, evidence-based policy is a good thing, but it is necessary to have the policy and the policy making. It would be good to know how the Government are seeking to develop policy and whether Parliament is going to play a part in that.
	I understand that the Government were intending to produce the results of their review of electoral systems across the UK, including those used in this year's Scottish elections, by the end of the year, but that it has now been postponed. May we have a statement announcing the new timetable, as the Leader of the House must ensure that the review does not disappear into the long grass?
	The Prime Minister is probably just about to set off to Lisbon to sign the European treaty. Presuming that he gets there and he signs it, when can we expect to start debates on the legislation to implement that treaty? We know that the debates will take a long time and we know that they will be on the Floor of the House, but it would be helpful for colleagues to know—

Chris Bryant: Can't wait.

Simon Hughes: Some colleagues, like the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), cannot wait! Many of us would like to know when that process is going to begin, as it will require a considerable time commitment.
	As we approach Christmas, may we have an opportunity before the break to discuss when the Farepak victims—I know we had a written statement about it yesterday—are likely to receive any money that, following the company's collapse, they may get? After the Ministry of Justice report showing that conciliation is not working, may we have a debate on conflict resolution in families? Finally, may we have a debate on the important issue of conflict resolution policy in government, especially given that it looks like we may have to be further engaged around the world in Kosovo and elsewhere? The more we can do to prevent and resolve conflicts rather than fight over them, the better. Many of us would view that as not just seasonally appropriate, but the best option all year round.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the number of policy reviews. If the Government are concerned that policy needs to be changed, surely the whole House would agree that they should reflect openly, consult, gather evidence, announce what they are going to do and only then put proposals before the House. Hon. Members would have much more to complain about if we brought proposals for change before the House without announcing or undertaking any review. I know that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that we are following what has been described as the Bercow report and that we are now moving to the next stage of reviewing special educational needs, which is both welcome and important. I think that the hon. Gentleman would also welcome how we are reviewing the way in which child mental health services work with schools. I believe that there is nothing wrong with reviews and that it is right for us to announce the results of them to the House.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the electoral systems review and I agree with him that the House expected to hear the results shortly. A great deal of change has resulted from the introduction of different systems in Scotland, Wales and England for European elections, local elections, mayoral elections and so forth. All of that needs to be analysed and the results understood before they can be reported back to the House. I will convey the hon. Gentleman's points to the Secretary of State for Justice.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about debates on the Bill to implement the European treaty. I can tell him and the House that as we become fully engaged with the European debates, we will find them plentiful and likely to take quite a long time. I believe that it is very important that as we scrutinise effectively the structural changes brought about by the treaty, we must not lose sight of what is most important to people in the country. They are less concerned about the minutiae of the structures and more concerned about how being a member of Europe contributes to our economy, to our work on climate change internationally and to how we tackle human trafficking. I hope that the House will sometimes be able to focus not just on the structures of Europe, but on what being in Europe means to people in this country.
	The hon. Gentleman asked for debate and discussion on the important matter of Farepak. One of the reasons why I chose the subject for this afternoon's topical debate was precisely in order to allow Farepak to be raised. There are concerns that people with the least money are most at risk when it comes to savings; those with the least money spend most when they are trying to save. That is why I chose the subject of the availability of financial services for low-income families for this afternoon's topical debate. Farepak is not in the title, so I accept that it was not good enough as a signal to the hon. Gentleman, but I expect it to be discussed.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about conflict resolution. He will know that the Foreign Secretary has made a number of statements about conflict resolution—for example, on the Government's work in Kosovo and other parts of the world. If any further information or proposals should be brought before the House, I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will do exactly that.

Mark Lazarowicz: May we have a debate on local democracy and devolution? I ask that because of the growing scandal in Scotland, where the Scottish National party Government have been interfering in an unprecedented way in the local planning process in support of a development proposed by the Trump Organisation. Should not the First Minister be reminded that the point of devolution was to bring power closer to the people, not to have power devolved to Edinburgh, only to have it taken away from local government and centralised in Edinburgh?

Harriet Harman: I will take up my hon. Friend's point with the Secretary of State for Scotland. The whole point of having a Scottish Parliament was to devolve power from Westminster to people in Scotland, not to suck up power from local authorities in Scotland and place it in Edinburgh instead.

David Davies: Legal aid is currently being extended to bogus asylum seekers, foreign terrorists, imprisoned murderers who want to have children and Ministry of Defence officials attending inquests, so may we have a debate on why legal aid is not being extended to the wives and families of British servicemen who have lost their lives in the service of their country? Many people would want that disgraceful injustice to be aired in Parliament.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman might remember that that point was put by one of his hon. Friends in Prime Minister's questions yesterday and that my right hon. Friend said that he would look further into it.

Ian Cawsey: Following this morning's announcement by the Post Office on various branch restructurings in my area, could my right hon. and learned Friend find time for the House to debate the Post Office's handling of the issue? The Westfield avenue branch in Goole was down for closure on the basis of incorrect public transport information, but that closure is to go ahead anyway. The plan for outreach services for the villages of Eastoft, Reedness, West Butterwick and Wroot is to go ahead, but we have not yet heard how or when. This morning, we suddenly find that the Wrawby post office, which was unaffected by the regional consultation, is now up for closure. There is no rhyme or reason to any of that, so will my right hon. and learned Friend please speak to the relevant Minister to ensure that Members are able to debate how the Post Office has acted in our constituencies?

Harriet Harman: Post offices are a matter of concern to all hon. Members. It is topical at the moment because of the programme of consultation that the Post Office is engaging in, so I will take my hon. Friend's comments as a proposal for a topical debate in January.

Douglas Hogg: May I reinforce the request of my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House for a debate on police pay? We all recognise that the Government have allowed public spending to get out of control and that they have increased the public sector wage bill to an unsustainable extent. That said, the decision not to backdate is unjust, unwise and mean-spirited. Next week, the House needs to have the opportunity to say so.

Harriet Harman: I will not add to what I have already said about that, except to say that I remember when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was part of a Conservative Government. Since then, and since we have had a Labour Government, my constituents and his have had more police on their streets, and more police community support officers—and those police officers are better paid than ever they were under a Conservative Government. The Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee today that he would love to pay the police more, but that he must be certain that we have a growing economy with stable public finances—and that is another thing that we did not have when the right hon. and learned Gentleman's party was in Government.

Jon Trickett: Could my right hon. and learned Friend find time for a debate about residential care for the elderly, the provision of which is diminishing and becoming worryingly fragmented? In my constituency, Anchor housing association's decision to present its proposal to close St. Clements Court in south Kirkby as a fait accompli has caused real anxiety and consternation, as well as some anger. It has become clear that the supply of residential care for the elderly in the area is diminishing, and that the local authority's role has been significantly weakened. All that is creating some trouble in the local community, and the local authority, as strategic provider, appears to lack the powers necessary for it to step in and fill the breach. May we have a debate about this important matter?

Harriet Harman: It is indeed important, for the reasons that my hon. Friend has given. The number of elderly people is growing. We need to make absolutely sure that they have the care and support that they need, and that families caring for them have the backing that they require as well. As my hon. Friend knows, there will be many debates in the House on the Health and Social Care Bill. He will also know of the review dealing with the existing support for carers, including those caring for older people. However, we remain concerned not only about residential care of the elderly but about domiciliary services, and I will raise my hon. Friend's points with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Sammy Wilson: During the 1980s, the Libyan Government brought hundreds of tons of guns and explosives into Northern Ireland to help the IRA. As a result, hundreds of people were killed, thousands were maimed, and businesses worth millions of pounds were destroyed. Many of the victims groups have been demanding that the Government seek compensation from the Libyan Government, just as compensation was sought for the victims of the destruction of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie. This week the groups were informed that the Government did not intend to pursue the case. Will the Leader of the House find time to bring the Foreign Secretary along to make a statement explaining why victims of Libyan-sponsored terrorism in Northern Ireland are being treated differently from victims of the same state in Lockerbie?

Harriet Harman: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that I raise the issue with both the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Foreign Secretary. He could then receive a letter, which could be placed in the Library so that all other Members could also be informed about that important matter.

Patricia Hewitt: I strongly support what my right hon. and learned Friend said a few minutes ago about Britain's membership of the European Union, but I want to raise a different subject. Could she find time for a debate on urban regeneration companies? The centre of my own city of Leicester is being transformed through a combination of private and public sector investment, and similar transformations are taking place in cities across our country. I think it is time the House discussed that success and how we can build on it in future.

Harriet Harman: My right hon. Friend's words will find an echo among a number of Members. I think it would be good to examine the important work of urban regeneration companies across the piece, on the basis of experience in different constituencies. I will seek an opportunity for it to be debated in Government time, either here or in Westminster Hall.

Nicholas Winterton: The courageous and outspoken Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, cut up his clerical collar recently on the Andrew Marr Show and vowed not to wear it again until the tyrant Mugabe was removed from office in Zimbabwe. When will the Government find time for a debate on the subject on the Floor of the House—and when will the Government of this country, which was responsible for putting Mr. Mugabe in power, take action to save the people of Zimbabwe from the tyrannical rule that they are currently experiencing?

Harriet Harman: I know that the whole House shares the hon. Gentleman's concern—a view that was expressed strongly during our recent debate in the House on the subject. He will know that the Government share it as well, that we are working closely with other countries internationally to put pressure—in all respects—on the Zimbabwean regime. We are working particularly closely with the African Union. We are very concerned indeed about the plight of the people in Zimbabwe, and want to support them while also tackling the terrible abuses of the Zimbabwean Government.

Margaret Moran: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is aware of reports in the media today that a convicted paedophile who viewed online child pornography has effectively had his sentence reduced from life to one year, although he had been viewing level 5 pornography, which involves material involving babies and bestiality. He is also the founder of an organisation that lobbies for sex with under-age children. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that viewing online child abuse is every bit as serious as production and distribution, and will she please make time, as a matter of urgency, for a debate in the House on sentencing for this very serious crime?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend will know of a recent review by the Sentencing Guidelines Council of sentencing for sexual offending. It is extremely important that new sexual offences are tackled effectively as they appear. My hon. Friend will, of course, be aware that although sentencing is a matter for the courts, the House sets the framework through legislation, and in a current Bill there are further measures to tackle the crime of child abuse via the internet.

Bob Neill: Will the Leader of the House make time, as a matter of urgency, for a debate on the audit function of local authorities, with particular reference to the situation in the Greater London authority and the London Development Agency? Some £2.5 million of public money appears to have been given to organisations controlled by associates of the Mayor's policy director, Lee Jasper, without adequate audit trails or, now, any proper account of where many hundreds of thousands of pounds of that money has gone.

Harriet Harman: Of course the work of the Audit Commission is important. It is important that the work of all local authorities in London, the Greater London authority and the Mayor is properly audited—as it is.
	I wish to complain about the hon. Gentleman tossing out allegations against Lee Jasper, who has done, and continues to do, a great deal of public work. I do not want to hear his name besmirched in the House for party political purposes, just because we are in the run-up to a mayoral election. I want to register my support for the work being done.

Louise Ellman: May we have a debate on the 20 per cent. Government cut in funding for science research and its impact on science departments at universities, including the one in Liverpool? It follows the merger of two science research councils, the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council and the Science and Technology Facilities Council. Surely a cut of 20 per cent. is not compatible with the Government's wish to support science.

Harriet Harman: The Government are strongly committed to supporting science with investment in industry and also in educational institutions. I am not sure that the figures given by my hon. Friend accord with my understanding of the position. There has not been a cut of £80 million in spending on physics. One research council—the Science and Technology Facilities Council—has decided to reduce the amount of support available for particle physics and astronomy in universities, but is continuing to invest heavily in those disciplines in CERN and elsewhere. Our commitment to science has led to funding rising from £1.3 billion to £3.4 billion this year. I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills to take into account the points my hon. Friend raises, and to write to her to clarify the position.

Alistair Burt: May we have an urgent debate on the Thames Gateway? Following a recent very critical report by the Public Accounts Committee, which was devastating in its view of how the Government and various Departments have handled the issue over several years, the Department for Communities and Local Government has moved with remarkable speed and efficiency to sack not one of its Ministers, but the chief executive of the Thames Gateway, whom it appointed about 18 months ago, in what looks like a clear case of scapegoating. I would like the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to come to the House for a debate so that she can explain why someone else is carrying the can for the Government's failure.

Harriet Harman: PAC reports are debated, and no doubt this one will be as well.

Alan Simpson: Over the next couple of days, Ministers will be returning from the world summit in Bali, at the end of which there are almost certain to be no binding agreements on targets and no recognition of the urgent action that needs to be taken on the basis of the intergovernmental panel on climate change report on the six to eight-year window of opportunity that we have in front of us. I am surprised that no statement is to be made to the House on Monday by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, because that means that there will be no debate on this matter until the new year. Given that the Government's programme is also ill equipped to deal with the scale of change in that six to eight years, will the Leader of the House not revisit the prospect of such a statement by the Secretary of State?

Harriet Harman: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will want to inform the House of the outcome at Bali and how we see the way forward. My hon. Friend knows that we take the view that there should be binding targets for reduction of carbon emissions; that is why that will be in the Climate Change Bill, which will shortly come before this House.

Julian Brazier: Concerns have been expressed in all parts of the House about the regime in Guantanamo Bay, and I am sure there is a welcome for the fact that the place is at last being run down, but may we have a debate in the House about the extraordinary Government decision to invite five terror suspects, none of whom are British citizens and one of whom stayed here for only a relatively short period, to come to this country, rather than being repatriated to their own countries?

Harriet Harman: I will bring the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The hon. Gentleman will know that we abhor the Guantanamo Bay regime, which is quite outwith the rule of law, and that we pressed for British citizens to be taken out of there and brought back to this country. As for the five remaining internees in Guantanamo Bay who are customarily resident in this country, I understand that in respect of three of them arrangements are being made to return to this country, but it is of course open to the Government to review their status and their right to stay here on their return.

Barry Gardiner: At 9 o'clock this morning, an outrage was perpetrated against the Hindu community in this country, when a Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals vet, accompanied by three police officers, went unannounced to Bhaktivedanta manor and put down a sacred cow, which had been nursed by the herdsmen at the manor for 14 months. I must stress that this cow was not contagious in any way and was not diseased; she had a muscle-wasting problem and was nursed for bedsores alone. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will appreciate the serious concern that this has caused within the Hindu community, and I ask her to take the matter up not only with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—I understand that DEFRA was not involved this morning—but with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. This has caused great concern in the community. We have laws in this country against blasphemy, and I believe it is now time for us to have a debate about how to deal with such issues sensitively across the board.

Harriet Harman: I understand the great concern that is felt on this issue in Britain's Hindu community, and I am glad that my hon. Friend has had the opportunity to raise it in the House. In response, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to write to him with all the background; my hon. Friend can then convey that to the Hindu community, which feels so concerned about the matter, so that it has all the facts and information.

Andrew MacKay: Will the Leader of the House haul the Chairman of the Liaison Committee before the House next week to explain the apparently unreasonable behaviour of his Committee in not allowing the Prime Minister to give evidence to it on another day, thus causing the Prime Minister great embarrassment, as he cannot be in Lisbon to sign the new treaty along with other European leaders?

Harriet Harman: It seems to be beyond some Members to understand the relatively simple proposition that the Prime Minister wanted to both answer the questions of the Liaison Committee and sign the treaty in person—and that although he has many remarkable qualities, being in two places at once is not one of them.

Anne Snelgrove: I listened carefully earlier today to my right hon. and learned Friend's answers about women in political life, and I wonder whether she would consider holding a topical debate on the issue—and would she broaden it to a discussion of women in public life? I have grave concerns about the number of women being appointed to public bodies in this country, and I believe that there might be some unintentional discrimination against women because of how the criteria are set.

Harriet Harman: I will look for an opportunity for this matter to be raised in the House. We are committed to ensuring that we get the right decision making in appointments to public boards, whether they are in health, education or industry. The figures show that we have not had sufficient change. About 33 per cent. of public appointments were women in 1997, and that figure has barely risen at all in the past 10 years: it is now only 35 per cent. That is simply not good enough. It is not that women in this country are not good enough; it is that the appointments system is not good enough to recognise the talent and experience that women in this country can bring to public service. Clearly, systemic discrimination is going on in public appointments, and we will have to set some stiff targets and make some progress on that. Inching forward by 2 per cent. in 10 years is simply not good enough.

Christopher Fraser: Farmers in my constituency are dismayed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs proposals for winter green cover, which will impact on traditional farming methods. Will the right hon. and learned Lady find time early in the new year for a debate on the nitrates directive?

Harriet Harman: I will bring that to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

James McGovern: May we have a debate about physical and verbal abuse of shop workers, and in particular betting-shop staff—an overwhelmingly female work force, many of whom are expected to accept such treatment as part and parcel of the job? The trade union community has been particularly active in my constituency on this issue. Will the Leader of the House join me in supporting its efforts to reverse the perception that such behaviour is in any way acceptable?

Harriet Harman: The House should be aware that one of the important things that is helping women at work—and, indeed, anybody who might be vulnerable in their work—is trade union equality reps. The Government have funded a programme of trade union equality reps at work, and I will discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform whether there can be some provision for equality reps in the betting industry, so that they can support women suffering from harassment from customers.

Mark Lancaster: Can we have a debate on my early-day motion 317, entitled "Open university"?
	 [That this House is concerned that the Government's decision to withdraw funding from institutions for equivalent or lower qualification students will have a disproportionate impact on the part-time sector in general and on specific institutions such as Birkbeck and the Open University; and urges the Government to consider ways in which it can minimise the damage this measure will do to lifelong learning and the delivery of the Leitch agenda objectives.]
	Given that 177 hon. Members from across the House have signed it, does the Leader of the House accept that there is growing unease in the House about the Government's decision to withdraw funding for students seeking equivalent and lower qualifications, and the disproportionate impact that that will have on the Open university and similar establishments? How does it square with the Government's commitment to lifelong learning?

Harriet Harman: We are strongly committed to what the Open university was set up to do: to extend educational opportunities to adults and those who might have missed out at school. A range of educational opportunities that were not available when the Open university was set up now exist, and the university remains very important. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could seek a Westminster Hall debate on the issue.

Madeleine Moon: Can we have a debate about the health impact of open-cast coal mining on local communities? People in Kenfig Hill and Cefn Cribwr in my constituency have suffered years of noise, dust, housing blight and environmental destruction. Is it not time for us to put forward the quality of life for local communities as the first priority, before we allow extensions to open-cast mining and the resulting clouds of potentially toxic dust?

Harriet Harman: The question of how we get the right developments is very much the subject of the Planning Bill, which is a centrepiece of the Government's legislative programme. As the Bill proceeds through this House, my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will have an opportunity to talk about the quality of life criteria that they would like to be central issues for planning decisions.

Richard Benyon: May I put myself firmly behind the request of the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) for a debate on post offices? Such a debate would allow me to point out the injustices of the five post office closures in my constituency and the appalling effect on people in Thatcham. They recently suffered seriously flooding, and they now have the double whammy of losing their post office. This issue is affecting a number of hon. Members in other parts of the country, so a topical debate would be much appreciated.

Harriet Harman: I shall take that as a suggestion for a topical debate. The raising of issues by Back Benchers from different parties is a key criterion for indicating that there should be a topical debate. The last time that I said that was in respect of Heathrow, about which lots of hon. Members from both sides of the House—especially Conservatives—expressed their desire to have a topical debate. I was just about to arrange one when I got pipped at the post by a Westminster Hall debate, but had that not happened, I would have done so.

Jim Sheridan: The Leader of the House has asked on many occasions for Members' suggestions on how best to improve topical debates. She may be aware that during a recent debate the official Opposition Front-Bench team used up a third of the time allocated for a topical debate, thereby denying Back Benchers the opportunity to ask pertinent questions. Will she examine that issue? Will she consider a way of restricting Front-Bench Opposition spokespeople from using up that time?

Harriet Harman: The point of topical debates is twofold. First, they aim to ensure that when a hot topic is being discussed up and down the country, this House is certain to have an opportunity to discuss it. Secondly, they are an important opportunity for Back Benchers to contribute to a debate on a topic, and to make their constituents' views and their own wider views known. I have examined the amount of time that has been taken up by Ministers and the Opposition Front-Bench teams in topical debates, and too few Back Benchers appear to be getting in. That is partly because of Back Benchers intervening on Front-Bench spokespeople, but we must examine the issue. There is no point in deterring Back Benchers from participating in topical debates because they think that they will sit for ages waiting and will hear nothing but speeches made from the Front Benches. I very much want to examine this issue and discuss it with all parties to ensure that we reach a sensible conclusion.

Andrew Murrison: In the abbreviated debate on armed forces personnel, will the right hon. and learned Lady ensure that her part-time colleague comes to the House prepared to talk about the military covenant in general and to address specifically the raw deal that service children get from a funding formula that completely fails to recognise the cost drivers that apply to schools with a high proportion of service children? I tried to raise this matter during yesterday's debate, but unfortunately the Minister for the Armed Forces largely ignored my remarks.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that he did have an opportunity to raise that issue in the House during yesterday's Opposition day debate. I shall take this opportunity to remind him that since this Government came to power in 1997, this country has become the second biggest spender on defence—second only to the United States. That investment has rightly gone into equipment, pay and housing for our armed forces. If he and the Conservatives are suggesting that more should be invested, it is incumbent on them also to suggest how much investment they would make and what they would cut to pay for it. Do they want us to overtake even America in our defence spending?

David Taylor: I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) said. Further to remarks made by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), it must have been a black day for Her Majesty's Opposition when the former proprietor of their house magazines was convicted in the United States of America on charges of fraud and obstructing justice. May I make a bid for a topical debate on standards in public life, to examine, among other things, whether the regulations of the two Houses of Parliament on ending someone's membership should be brought into line with one another?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes a good point. On party funding, he will know that the Government will introduce a Bill to ensure that we have fair and open funding of party campaigns, and that a cap is put on the total expenditure in campaigns so that we end the arms race. I hope that we will find support on both sides of the House for that.

Julian Lewis: My question relates to column 611W of yesterday's  Hansard and a written answer that I received. I thank the Leader of the House and her deputy most warmly for the support that they have been giving to my mini-campaign. When a Minister's written answer refers to a written answer given to another hon. Member, I would like a hard copy of that answer to be supplied. I also thank them both for the following written answer:
	"It is standard practice to provide Members with a copy of any previous response which is referred to in an answer to a question."—[ Official Report, 26 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 133W.]
	May I therefore ask the Leader of the House to have a word with the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg)? He provided a written answer that stated:
	"The MOD has never provided this information and has no plans to change its policy."—[ Official Report, 12 December 2007; Vol. 469, c. 611W.]
	I know that they are overstretched and part-time, but should they not at least listen to the Leader of the House?

Harriet Harman: When Ministers answer questions it is important that they recognise that this is about accountability. They should answer questions in a spirit of accountability to this House. They should not provide research pointers or clues so that the Member then has to do some more finding out. A complete answer ought to be given. Referring to other questions, to departmental or agency websites or to previous things is not being as helpful as I would like Ministers to be to Members of this House. Being helpful to Members and carrying on with the business of Government are both responsibilities. One of the responsibilities of Government is to be accountable to this House. I totally dispute what the hon. Gentleman said about the part-time something or other—I cannot remember what it was, but I totally disagree with it—but I strongly agree with him about ministerial accountability.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am now down to my six regular customers. For me to take them all, they must be very brief.

Nigel Evans: May we have a debate on the Prime Minister's busy schedule? The Leader of the House accused us of turning Europe into a pantomime, but the Prime Minister has done that himself. When the rest of the European Union leaders sign the constitutional treaty, they will ask, "Where is the British Prime Minister?" They will be told, "He's behind you." If the Prime Minister is signing away British constitutional rights, he should be there—

Mr. Speaker: There we are: some hon. Gentlemen just do not listen.

Harriet Harman: That hon. Gentleman is not one of the usual suspects, who are much better. I shall sit down and wait to hear from one of them.

Henry Bellingham: May we have a debate on prisons and offender data? Is the Leader of the House aware that Roger Hill, the director of the probation service within the National Offender Management Service, has said that the new computer system—CNOMIS—will be suspended and scaled down for use only in prisons? On the other hand, the Ministers of State at the Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) and the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), have said that that is not the case. Who is correct?

Harriet Harman: I will get my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice to write to the hon. Gentleman with the answer to that question.

John Bercow: May we please have a statement next week on the proposed allocation of time for the consideration on Wednesday 9 January of the remaining stages of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, given that one very important matter that we will have to consider that day is the Government's welcome creation of a new offence of homophobic hate crime, to which—sadly—some misguided souls are strongly opposed? Does the Leader of the House accept that it is in the Government's and the public's interest to err on the side of generosity and allow adequate time so that the objections can be fully aired and effectively rebutted?

Harriet Harman: I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's support for that important addition to the Bill. We will of course want to ensure that the Government have time to set out the arguments for its introduction and all sides have the opportunity to explain why they do or do not support it. We will take that into account when allocating time for the debate.

Mark Pritchard: May we have an urgent debate on post-traumatic stress and post-traumatic stress disorder, which affect an increasing number of our armed forces personnel? Will the Leader of the House put on record the Government's tribute to the hard-working staff of Combat Stress at Audley Court in Newport for all that they do for our brave servicemen and women?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make those points more fully in the debate on armed services personnel on Thursday 10 January.

Peter Bone: I recently asked the Department for Transport how many car miles there were in 1997 and how many there are now. I ripped open the envelope that I received with great joy, but instead of an answer I had been given a 60-character URL. I did not know what to do with that, but my staff did. To add to the insult, the result was given in kilometres, not miles. Was not that done to hide the information from the media? What powers does the Leader of the House have to stop such actions?

Harriet Harman: I do not accept the implication of some sort of conspiracy, especially in respect of the example that the hon. Gentleman gives. However, as my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House said, the Procedure Committee is reflecting on the quality, timeliness and accuracy of written answers.

Mark Harper: Given the importance that the Leader of the House gives to the quality of written answers, perhaps she could speak to her colleague, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, so that the named day questions about his Department's control of information held on the public that were due for answer two and a half weeks ago could be answered before the Christmas recess.

Harriet Harman: I think that I am getting déjà vu, as I thought that the hon. Gentleman had already asked that question of my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House earlier. I ask him to recall her answer, as I am sure it was correct.

Philip Hollobone: May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Transport next week about the Government's role in the new rail service to and from Kettering, which has had a dramatic reduction in services to London and a 50 per cent. cut in train services north? Will the Secretary of State publish the specification against which the new franchise was judged?

Harriet Harman: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport, has recently been to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The hon. Gentleman will know that since we came into government there have been more passengers and more freight on trains, better rolling stock and improved time-keeping. If he has any further concerns, I suggest that he raises them in a debate in Westminster Hall.

Security Industry Authority

Jacqui Smith: Following my statement of 13 November, I would like to update the House on the actions that we are taking to address Security Industry Authority licensing checks and the issue of entitlement to work in the United Kingdom.
	An SIA licence demonstrates that the holder has undergone training and that identity and criminality checks have been completed. An SIA licence has never constituted evidence of entitlement to work in this country, and it is the responsibility of employers to ensure that the people they employ are entitled to work.
	Before my previous statement, steps were already being taken to prevent illegal working in the security industry. From 2 July 2007, the SIA introduced immigration status checks with the Border and Immigration Agency on all non-European economic area applicants as part of the security industry licensing process. That is not a substitute for employers meeting their clear obligations, but the SIA checks provide a double lock on illegal working in this area. Alongside the immigration status checks, my Department took steps to determine how many people who were granted licences prior to 2 July did not have the right to work. Plans were put in place for the BIA to check all the 39,885 non-EEA nationals licensed by SIA before 2 July. Manual checks had already started at the rate of 1,000 cases per week.
	I wanted the process to be speeded up without compromising accuracy. I therefore ordered automatic matching between the SIA list of non-EEA nationals and databases operated by BIA and UK Visas. The BIA and SIA have now completed the checks on the 39,885 non-EEA nationals licensed by SIA before 2 July. On the basis of those checks, I am advised that the BIA is fully satisfied that 28,737 have the right to work in this country; the BIA believes that 6,653 do not have the right to work in this country; and, in 4,447 other cases, the BIA is not satisfied that the individual has proved the right to work. The balance of 48 represents duplicate records.
	The following steps are being taken to revoke the licences of those found not to be entitled to work in this country. The SIA has written to all companies on their database to remind them of the need to check regularly on the SIA's website the registers of licence holders and of revoked licences, to ensure that all their staff have the right to work. The registers are currently receiving more than 1,000 hits a day. Apart from a small number of cases whose SIA licence is close to expiry, the SIA has written to all of those individuals—more than 10,500—for whom checks indicate no right to work or where the BIA is not satisfied that the individual has the right to work. Those letters advise the licence holder that the SIA is minded to revoke their licence. The SIA gives recipients 21 days in which to respond with further information, and it expects that many will do so. If evidence is not forthcoming, the SIA will move to revocation. The law then allows the individual a further 21 days in which to appeal to the magistrates or sheriff courts. Once the SIA has completed the process, it will be in a position to determine the number of individuals who were not entitled to work but obtained SIA licences prior to the new double lock checking regime that is now in place.
	The SIA expects that a significant proportion may yet establish that they have a right to work in this country. I am advised that, of the new applicants for licences initially considered for refusal by the SIA on the basis of checks with the BIA after 2 July, more than 30 per cent. have since shown that they have the right to work. The SIA will publish the final numbers of the pre-2 July group on its website when they are complete.
	I repeat that it is important that all employers fulfil their obligations by carrying out all the proper checks before taking anyone on. We are also taking further steps to protect the public from those individuals whom we suspect have breached our immigration laws by working here illegally. First, all the cases where "minded to revoke" action is being taken against individuals have been passed to the BIA enforcement intelligence units to be assessed for further action. The BIA is screening those individuals against the police national computer and other databases so that we can target any individuals who may pose a risk to the public.
	Secondly, the cases are being analysed for evidence of employers who appear to have a track record of employing people who do not have a right to work. The BIA tells me that a third of its illegal working operation is deployed on that employment sector. Visits to specific individuals and employers have already begun and swift action has been taken in those cases that merit it. A series of targeted enforcement operations will take place in the coming months, with a view to prosecuting employers and removing or prosecuting individuals in the worst cases.
	Thirdly, in line with our enforcement strategy, we will continue to target illegal working on the basis of the risk of harm to the public. New powers which come into force in February will mean that we can more easily fine employers who break the rules. Now that we have identified a significant problem in the security industry, we will maintain a focus on its employers and staff.
	We are taking other steps further to guard against illegal working in the security industry. First, the BIA has passed to the SIA the right-to-work expiry dates of all licence holders and recent new applicants. The SIA has agreed that in future it will send "minded to revoke" letters to all those licence holders shortly before their right-to-work status expires. Secondly, I have asked the BIA to work with the SIA to provide specialist advice to enhance its ability to spot fraudulent documentation.
	Thirdly, the SIA's licence application form does not specifically ask applicants to state that they have the right to work in the UK. I have therefore asked the SIA to review the application form to ensure that it contains all the information both the SIA and BIA may need, with a view to making changes as soon as possible. Fourthly, in January the SIA will run a joint seminar with the British Security Industry Association to underline the importance of employers' meeting their responsibilities in that area. Fifthly, the taskforce that I set up to resolve the issue in September, chaired by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), will continue to oversee action.
	I believe that the update that I have provided today demonstrates my determination, and that of the Government, to put in place effective systems and procedures to protect the public further. I commend the statement to the House.

David Davis: I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement.
	Last month, we were told there were 5,000 illegal foreign workers in the security industry. Then it was 10,000. Now it is up to 11,000. First, will the Home Secretary answer some simple factual questions? How many of the 11,000 people working in security positions without a work permit have had their SIA licence revoked? Is she telling us that so far there have been none after nine months? How many have been removed from their security posts? How many are still in place, and why? How many have been deported? How many of those illegal workers does she expect to be deported? Can she now answer the question that I asked her last month: how many have been engaged protecting police, military or Government posts or critical national infrastructure?
	My next questions relate to how on earth the system went so badly wrong. The Home Secretary said today that an SIA licence has
	"never constituted evidence of entitlement to work in this country".
	That is not what the SIA says, and nor is it what any reasonable employer would accept. In a document published by the SIA in 2006, and repeated on its website, it states:
	"To obtain an SIA licence it is necessary to pass checks relating to competency and being a fit and proper person for the role."
	It goes on:
	"The fit and proper person check is made up of the following checks"—
	and No. 1 is the
	"right to work in the UK".
	Does the Secretary of State accept that the SIA led the industry to believe that it checked immigration status?
	The SIA required a range of documents including passports and driving licences. It held those documents for up to three months. In some 5,000 to 11,000 cases they were presumably forgeries. How was the SIA—I emphasise that it is the Security Industry Authority—able to miss up to 11,000 forgeries? Who is responsible for that failure? Will there now be prosecutions in every case where forged documents were provided?
	Not just the SIA was fooled. The application form provides for the applicant to give a national insurance number. In how many cases were illegal immigrants given a national insurance number? What are the checks made before a national insurance number is given? Is there a check on immigration status, and if not, why not?
	There is also the issue of the Government's candour—or lack of it. In her November statement, the Home Secretary said that Ministers were informed about the problem in June, yet the Minister for Borders and Immigration told the Select Committee on Home Affairs on 27 November that he knew in April. Was he mistaken or did the Home Secretary accidentally misinform the House earlier?
	The Home Secretary told the House in her last statement that she did not tell the Prime Minister until the weekend before. She said:
	"I did not tell the Prime Minister because there was not a fiasco".—[ Official Report, 13 November 2007; Vol. 467, c. 538.]
	I will pass over what it takes to constitute a fiasco in the Home Office these days. The problem we have is that when the Prime Minister was asked the very next day to confirm when the Home Secretary had told him, he refused to answer three times. When I asked him the next week by written question to confirm the account, he referred me back to his non-answer. When his spokesman was asked at the Lobby briefing, he replied that he would not get into internal government processes and discussions.
	Let us be clear about what the Home Secretary has said. She was aware in July. However, in August, September and October, when the Prime Minister was actively considering an election, she did not tell him about the brewing scandal in the Home Office. Will she confirm that neither she nor her office and her advisers informed either the Prime Minister or his office before Saturday 10 November 2007? Yes or no?

Jacqui Smith: First, the right hon. Gentleman's point about certainty of information proves the point made in my last statement about the importance of ensuring that information is certain before reporting it to the House. He has just cited a series of figures, even though I made it clear when I made that statement that they were not certified and checked. That was why I argued as I did and have come back to the House to provide the detailed information in my statement today.
	There have been 409 revocations of licences from before 2 July, when the new immigration checks were brought in. More than 10,000 letters instituting revocation have been issued, but as the revocation process involves a minimum period of 42 days, there will obviously be more. However, 409 is the figure at the moment.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked me specific questions about enforcement. The Border and Immigration Agency has rightly focused its attention on working with the SIA to identify the scale of the problem so that further work can be done. At the same time, however, the BIA has also started investigations into 328 of the cases referred to it. It has carried out 101 enforcement visits and arrested 15 individuals, and plans to make at least 400 further visits by the end of January.
	The right hon. Gentleman then spoke about the system as a whole, and I want to begin my response to that by repeating what I said in my previous statement to the House. The SIA was not failing to do anything that it was legally required to do. The legal requirement to check an employee's right to work has always fallen on employers, but the SIA did carry out spot-checks on a sample. Along with the enforcement activities that took place in April, those spot-checks identified that there was a need to tighten the system even further by the application of what I have described as a double lock. That is what has happened. It is why, from 2 July, 100 per cent. of those applying for a SIA licence have been subject to a check of their immigration status. It is also why the evidence required for identity checks was upgraded from 1 October—a change that will impact on everyone with a SIA licence that comes up for renewal.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about forgeries. He will know that they can be very expert, but the BIA has considerable expertise in discovering them and winkling them out. That is why, as I said in my statement, I have asked the BIA to provide the SIA with advice on how to identify forgeries.
	As for national insurance numbers, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that anyone applying for an employment-related NI number must supply proof of the right to work in the UK by providing a limited number of specified documents. I repeat what I said in my previous statement to the House on these matters: my hon. Friend the Minister for Borders and Immigration told the Home Affairs Committee that we undertook an enforcement operation in April. In other words, that was precisely the sort of action in respect of the immigration system that we must take if we are to clamp down on illegal working. The operation identified a potential problem in the security industry, and led to the action that was taken subsequently.
	Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked about keeping the Prime Minister up to date about what is happening with this matter. In fact, in his response to my statement he quoted how we did just that.

Nicholas Clegg: I thank the Home Secretary for giving me advance sight of her statement.
	For some time now, I have been following the series of scandals that has disfigured the Government's spectacular mismanagement of the immigration system. I thought that we had seen it all, but this latest, belated revelation of Keystone Cops incompetence truly takes the breath away.
	For instance, we learned today that the BIA will
	"work with the SIA to provide specialist advice to enhance their ability to spot fraudulent documentation."
	Why has something so basic not happened before? Why have we learned only today that the BIA is finally passing to the SIA the right-to-work expiry dates of all existing licence holders? Why has that not happened before?
	We learned from the Home Secretary's statement today that as many as one in four of the 40,000 individuals licensed by the SIA might be illegal. Does she therefore agree that equally estimable analyses should be published of illegal working levels in those other sectors—such as agriculture, construction and hospitality—where they are known to be high?
	Finally, so many resources were diverted to dealing with the foreign offenders scandal that the number of failed asylum seekers being deported fell by a massive 40 per cent. in the space of a few months. That suggests to me that the BIA is incapable of performing more than one task at a time. We learned today that a third of its illegal working operation is being allocated to dealing with that particular mess alone, so will the Home Secretary tell us what she thinks will be the knock-on effect of that massive deployment of resources? What other scandals can we look forward to as a result?

Jacqui Smith: It is a pleasure to see the hon. Gentleman in his place this afternoon. I presume that he feels confident that he has achieved success and that he no longer needs to be out on the hustings.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about forgeries. As I said, we are adopting a sensible approach and making sure that the BIA's expertise in respect of forgeries is made available to the SIA, and it seems a little hard to be criticised for doing so. In addition, the action being taken over the expiry dates of people's leave and right to work is another example of the double lock—the belt and braces approach—that the Government are putting in place. When employers employ a person, they have the responsibility to carry out checks of that person's right to work, and to maintain those checks. Notwithstanding that responsibility, the Government are assisting the SIA by enabling it to issue "minded to revoke" letters in all circumstances when a person with a licence is coming to the end of the period when he or she has the right to work here.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about illegal working. In our responses to parliamentary questions, the Government often provide information about our illegal working enforcement activities, including breakdowns of those activities by sector. The answer to illegal working is not simply to provide more information. We must also ensure that there is more enforcement, and the doubling of the BIA's enforcement effort is an important contribution to that.
	The hon. Gentleman asked a linked question about the enforced return of failed asylum seekers. It is true that we matched our record for enforced returns in the third quarter of the year, but we are also carrying out our promise to prioritise those who pose the biggest threat of harm. That is why I believe that we will be successful in achieving the targets that we have set ourselves for returning foreign national prisoners this year.
	If he had his way, the hon. Gentleman would provide an amnesty for people who are currently working illegally in this country as failed asylum seekers. That could only make the problem worse, so his criticisms are therefore a little hard to take.

Keith Vaz: May I thank the Home Secretary for fulfilling her promise to return to the House and report back on the steps that she has taken? I warmly welcome what she and the Minister for Borders and Immigration have done to resolve what is a difficult problem.
	I am glad that the Home Secretary has accepted the point about the application form that was made at the most recent Home Affairs Committee hearing. It is blindingly obvious that the form should have contained the question, "Do you have the right to work?" We could not understand why the SIA chief executive refused to change the form.
	However, will my right hon. Friend tell us what the endgame will be? She has updated us on the figures and told us precisely how many licences have been revoked. She has also confirmed that the taskforce will continue under the supervision of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), but when will she be able to tell the House that the matter has been resolved completely and that the licences have finally been revoked?

Jacqui Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for raising the point about a positive declaration of the right to work on the application form. We have taken cognisance of it and I have asked the authority to redesign the form to ensure that all the necessary information is included.
	On what my right hon. Friend describes as the endgame, I can say that the result of the action we have taken, particularly since 2 July, is to strengthen, on an ongoing basis, both the immigration checks made when somebody applies for a Security Industry Authority licence—there is now a 100 per cent. check—and, from 1 October, the nature of the evidence required to verify somebody's identity, which will ensure, as I said in my statement, that any doubt about the veracity of identity documents will be dealt with as licences come up for renewal.
	My right hon. Friend asked when we would know the number of revocations. In my statement, I said that the revocation process takes a minimum of 42 days. Some individuals will exercise their right to lodge an appeal in the magistrates courts or sheriff courts, but I have made it clear that the SIA should maintain a record of licences that are being revoked, so that when we complete the process it should be able to report on the total number of licence revocations.

Julian Lewis: Did the Home Secretary tell the Prime Minister about this particular calamity before 10 November?

Jacqui Smith: I did not.

Bruce George: Does the Home Secretary accept that most people who take an interest in the Security Industry Authority—both of us—agree that it is doing a pretty good job? I am not uncritical, but it does a good job. If my right hon. Friend talks to people who have been around for a long time she will understand why the Conservatives are so aggressive: they never liked the concept of the SIA. Although they had the opportunity, between 1979 and 1997, to introduce such an authority they completely opposed the concept. There may be some sort of regression, so does my right hon. Friend accept that they have form in this area? When they held office there was no regulatory authority, so how many people slipped through the net in the absence of the SIA that they are now kicking?

Jacqui Smith: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. When I read some of the reports of the Committee proceedings of the Private Security Industry Act 2001, which brought in the SIA, I was struck by the wisdom of my right hon. Friend's contributions. He has been interested in the matter for a long time, and he is right to note that a large number of people have come to it relatively recently with the intention of kicking the SIA, which has played an important role. The security industry, pre-SIA, was almost wholly unregulated in respect of its staffing, so regardless of whether a person had a criminal record or the right to work in the UK, or whether there were other slightly dodgy elements, they could get a job in the security industry. Thanks to the work of my right hon. Friend and others, and thanks to the Government's willingness to introduce legislation, we have a regulated security industry, and members of the public and employers can feel more confident about the quality of the service they are offering and receiving.

Henry Bellingham: The Home Secretary mentioned the words "double lock" about 14 times. Can she confirm that the doors being double locked were actually wide open? Is she aware that the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 brought under the SIA the regulation of private bailiffs? Can she tell the House how many private bailiffs are working without a permit and what steps she is taking to ensure that the regulatory regime for private bailiffs has at its core the prevention of any illegal work?

Jacqui Smith: The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling, tells me that work is under way to bring the regulation of private bailiffs within the purview of the SIA. If the hon. Gentleman is genuinely interested, he might like to have a conversation with my hon. Friend.

Michael Weir: The Home Secretary rightly reminds employers of their obligations, but what does she say to employers who do make the appropriate checks but cannot obtain licences for people who clearly have a right to work? One of my constituents was told recently that no new licences would be issued for two months, despite the fact that there had already been a considerable delay. One Scottish local authority had to switch off a CCTV camera system for six weeks because the licences had not arrived. Is it the case that there is chaos at the heart of the SIA, or is it that because resources are being redeployed to firefight this particular problem, other parts of the authority's work are going by the board?

Jacqui Smith: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is talking specifically about the situation in Scotland, where the need for an SIA licence was implemented only on 1 November, although people have been able to apply for licences since 1 February, which is clearly a much longer period than two months. My understanding is that 80 per cent. of licences are issued within eight weeks. The only instances where there may be a short delay—perhaps one to two weeks—are in respect of applicants from outside the European economic area, where, as I have already said, we are making additional checks.

Michael Weir: indicated dissent.

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but I am happy to say that the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice wrote to us recently to thank us and our officials for our co-operation in ensuring that the system works smoothly and securely.

John Baron: May I suggest that the Home Secretary's answer to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) about the granting of SIA licences was completely laughable? Her suggestion that checks will be tightened up clearly shows that the immigration system is a complete shambles in that regard. She suggests that employers can make the checks, but does she not accept that in granting licences the SIA clearly creates the impression that illegal immigrants have been checked and can work in the UK, given the stipulations in the SIA regulations?

Jacqui Smith: I do not suggest that employers should check right-to-work status; it is the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 that suggests employers have a duty to check, and the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 tightens up that requirement. Employers have a legal requirement to check whether somebody has the right to work, and now—to assist employers in the security industry—there will be an extra check by the SIA of people's right to work before they are issued with a licence. That is the double lock to which the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden was referring.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
	Consolidated Fund Act 2007

Topical Debate
	 — 
	Financial Services (Low-income Families)

Kitty Ussher: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of availability of financial services for low income families.
	It is a pleasure to open the fifth-ever topical debate and to talk about such an important issue. Financial inclusion—ensuring that everyone can access the financial services they need to participate in today's economy and society—is an issue in which many Members take a close interest. I welcome that, because the Government believe the issue demands our attention. We have made it a priority and we continue to focus on it, and I shall explain why.
	Many Members have seen the effects of financial exclusion in their constituency, as I have. Being excluded from the system can mean that people face extra costs, such as paying commission to cash a cheque if they do not have a bank account. If they do not have savings or insurance, they may have difficulty replacing household necessities that are damaged or lost. They may experience the real problems of over-indebtedness, which could have been avoided with the right advice and support. Some people even face intimidation and violence at the hands of illegal loan sharks, as well as high costs, if affordable credit is not available.

Michael Weir: Although I fully appreciate what the Minister is saying, does she accept that the local post office was often the only place in many villages in rural areas and deprived communities where financial inclusion was available and that the closure of many of those post offices is causing real problems?

Kitty Ussher: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that specific initiatives are in place, in conjunction with my colleagues in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, to ensure that any avoidable closure of a rural post office is indeed avoided. However, it has to be said that if people used post offices more, they would be viable companies to operate.
	As hon. Members will know, the effects of financial exclusion are felt most by those who can least afford them: low-income families and some of the vulnerable members of our society. Those effects can entrench poverty, because the poor end up paying more. Tackling financial exclusion is quite simply a matter of social justice, as well as a matter of economic efficiency. There is therefore a clear case for Government action. Over the last few years in particular, we have made that a priority. In 2004, we set up a financial exclusion taskforce to advise us and monitor our progress. That was in addition to the financial inclusion fund of, initially, £120 million over three years. So far, that fund has allowed DBERR to help more than 66,000 people to get free, face-to-face advice on their debt problems and the Department for Work and Pensions to increase the supply of affordable credit in rural and urban areas. Work has been carried out with more than 100 third sector lenders to provide £20 million of affordable loans to more than 46,000 financially excluded people.

Philip Hollobone: Kettering Welfare Rights, which is a voluntary organisation, secures more than £3 million of benefits for people who otherwise would not get them. Would not the process be made that much easier if, instead of launching all these laudable initiatives, Departments simply did what they are expected to do: get benefits to people who qualify for them, rather than relying on voluntary organisations to make sure that the process works?

Kitty Ussher: Of course Departments put considerable energy into ensuring that eligible benefit recipients receive their benefits, but I am sure that we would all agree that there is often an information mismatch. I am delighted to hear about the work in Kettering. In my constituency, an invaluable role is played by Lancashire Welfare Rights, which is a free service provided by Lancashire county council to address that gap. I commend local authorities that complement the work of national Government.
	I was talking about the effect of the national initiatives to combat financial exclusion. Over the past few years, we have also been working with the banks towards a shared target to halve the number of adults who do not have access to a bank account. By September 2005, we were 60 per cent. of the way towards achieving our target, with 800,000 adults brought into banking. That is the most recent figure available. We hope and expect that number to be even higher in the updated figures. There has been progress in helping low-income families to access the financial services that they need—bank accounts, affordable credit and money advice—but that progress needs to continue.

Brooks Newmark: Will the Minister acknowledge that the continued closure of post offices, particularly in rural areas such as those in my constituency, will only exacerbate the problem of financial exclusion, particularly for elderly people?

Kitty Ussher: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman listened to my response to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir). I do not accept that financial exclusion will be made worse. The Government have tried every single avenue to ensure that avoidable closures in rural areas are indeed avoided, with some considerable innovative successes. Post offices have moved into other businesses and so on.

Anne Snelgrove: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Post Office has just introduced a new Christmas savings scheme, which will be targeted at low-income families? It intends to introduce the scheme shortly after this Christmas, in time for next Christmas. I am seeing representatives of the Post Office on Monday to ensure that all the regulatory requirements are met. The scheme will ensure that post offices have even more business, so that they will remain open in future.

Kitty Ussher: I am aware of the scheme and I commend the work of the Post Office in that regard and the efforts of my hon. Friend. That is just one example of how the Post Office is able to use its trusted brand—it is often particularly trusted at the lower ends of the market—to offer products that help to deal with financial exclusion issues. Low-cost insurance is a good example, as is making sure that people are able to use Post Office services to access broader financial services.

Brooks Newmark: rose—

Kitty Ussher: The hon. Gentleman looks so keen to intervene that I must allow him to do so.

Brooks Newmark: I want to follow up on the interesting point made in the intervention about Christmas schemes. What lessons have the Government learned from the failures in relation to the Farepak disaster last year? Those lessons would be helpful in dealing with this issue.

Kitty Ussher: I am sure that a large number of Members will wish to mention Farepak, but the hon. Gentleman has been the first to do so. I was coming on to that point. We initially took steps to provide better protection and information for consumers. We have worked with the other hamper companies to put in place effective protection for customers' pre-payments. We welcome the action by the industry to put in place independently controlled accounts to protect customers' funds. We gave the Office of Fair Trading £1 million for an initial marketing campaign. The figure will be £2 million in the financial inclusion plan for the next comprehensive spending review, which I announced a couple of weeks ago. Specific action is being taken by the companies investigation branch and the liquidators with regard to Farepak. We have not ruled out further regulation once that process is complete. I am happy to return to this matter.

Michael Weir: Does not the Post Office Christmas scheme, which is laudable and which I fully support, underline the point that in many deprived communities and small villages the post office is the only place left that offers any sort of financial business? The banks have long since gone from many of those areas. If the post office is closed, it does not matter what sort of scheme exists, because people will not be able to access it.

Kitty Ussher: That is why we are doing everything we can to prevent closures in rural areas, as I made clear to the hon. Gentleman previously. Special Government money is available and innovative solutions are considered on a regional and sub-regional basis to make sure that in every single case where the business becomes unviable, if there is an alternative that can be used to save the rural post office it will be pursued. There are examples up and down the land of post offices moving into other premises and of mobile post offices. I support every single one of those ideas.

Katy Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that, to enable post offices to remain viable and to continue to operate, there is a need for them to provide as many services as possible and for them to be given a level playing field to compete with other providers?

Kitty Ussher: I agree very much with my hon. Friend's point, which is why the provision of other financial services through the Post Office is so important: it will raise the footfall through the existing post offices to make sure that the individual business men and women—the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses—who are trying to keep their businesses viable have a greater chance to do so. I support every individual sub-postmaster and sub-postmistress who wishes to diversify their business, either by means of the stock of products available through Post Office Counters Ltd, or by diversifying into another business to keep the shop open. My hon. Friend makes a good point.
	As I said, we have made progress in helping low-income families to access the financial services that they need—bank accounts, affordable credit and money advice—but that needs to continue. In the comprehensive spending review, we announced that our financial inclusion fund for the next spending period will increase to £130 million over the next three years. Just last week, we published our financial inclusion action plan, setting out how that money will be used to take forward our three goals for financial inclusion.
	The first goal is that everyone should be able to manage their money effectively and securely. That means continuing with our shared target on basic bank accounts, which I mentioned, but also making sure that those accounts are accessible—including by increasing the supply of free ATMs. It is now exactly a year since the working group on ATMs, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (John McFall), published its report. More than 540 new free ATM sites have been identified, with more than 330 machines already issuing cash free of charge to people in low-income areas, including the constituencies of many hon. Members present this afternoon.
	The second goal is making sure that people who find themselves in financial difficulty can get the support that they need. We will use about £75 million of our financial inclusion fund to allow DBERR to continue to provide the free face-to-face advice that already helps so many people.
	The third goal is that everyone should be able to plan for the future, and affordable credit and appropriate savings accounts should be available to help them. I am sure that hon. Members will agree with me about the importance of affordable credit in helping vulnerable people to avoid the need for expensive—or even, in some cases, illegal—borrowing and the spiral of debt to which that can lead. I am therefore pleased to say that £38 million of the fund will be used by the Department for Work and Pensions to double the third sector's capacity to lend to the financially excluded. I am particularly pleased with, and would like to thank, the banks that have committed to taking action to support third sector affordable credit.

James Brokenshire: The Minister talked about affordable credit. The Government introduced the Consumer Credit Act 2006, which sought to clarify the situation regarding extortionate credit bargains, which came about under previous laws, and to try to promote the concept of more responsible lending. Will she give an assessment of the Act's impact on those issues? What impact has it had in allowing us to strike the balance between making sure that loans are made available to people on low incomes, and ensuring that they are not exploited, either legally or illegally?

Kitty Ussher: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. He correctly identifies the effect that the Act, which received Royal Assent last year, will have. It is being implemented progressively. One of its most important aspects is the way in which it will increase the transparency of terms for consumers, strengthen consumer rights by enabling consumers to challenge unfair lending agreements and to seek redress, and make it possible for disputes to be resolved more easily. Of course, it also gives people the right to use the financial ombudsman service in consumer credit disputes. That and a number of other measures will make a huge difference.
	Much of the lending that will take place through the mechanism that I just described—through the Department for Work and Pension's growth fund for credit unions and others—will of course strengthen the credit union sector. That will make a huge difference in many of our constituencies. Credit unions have a huge part to play in tackling financial exclusion, so we are currently reviewing the legislation for credit unions and co-operatives, with the aim of helping them to compete with companies and to provide their services to a wider range of people. We will publish our detailed proposals shortly.
	We want to make sure that people have access not only to affordable credit, but to appropriate savings options. That brings us on to Farepak—one of the issues that make the debate topical, as we are approaching Christmas. I am sure that all hon. Members share our wish to prevent last year's disaster from happening again. As I said previously, to help achieve that, £2 million of the financial inclusion fund will be used to continue the Office of Fair Trading's "Save Xmas" campaign, which helps people to understand their Christmas saving options.
	Of course, we have to think about savings more widely, and particularly about encouraging people on lower incomes to save. Since 1997, individual savings accounts have been successful in developing and extending the savings habit, and the child trust fund will ensure that in future all young people have a financial asset at 18, regardless of their parents' background. In the past few years, through the saving gateway pilots, we have been exploring the idea of matching—whereby every pound saved is matched by a Government contribution—to incentivise those on lower incomes to save. The pilots have shown that matching works as a simple and easily understood incentive to save, and that it can help to promote financial inclusion by promoting regular saving in a regulated environment, and by bringing some people into contact with financial institutions for the first time. We are now conducting feasibility work on whether the saving gateway could be rolled out nationally, and we intend to make announcements on that next year.
	In conclusion, we are focusing, and will continue to focus, on increasing low-income families' access to the financial services that they need—to bank accounts, money advice, affordable credit and savings accounts. I should like to take this opportunity to thank all those who are involved in those efforts, whether in the third sector, the banks, local government, this House, voluntary organisations or elsewhere. All hon. Members present will agree that those are important issues, and that we need to tackle financial exclusion. Once again, it is a pleasure to discuss today the ways we plan to do that.

Mark Hoban: Families in Britain face a real challenge today. The global credit squeeze does not just affect international banks and businesses; it ripples its way through to families across the country. Increases in the rates at which banks lend to each other will push up the cost of mortgages. Lenders are turning down applications for credit cards and are reviewing credit limits. People who would have been granted credit a few months ago will now face rejection. More people will be turning to alternative lenders, as mainstream lenders turn them away. The cost will be higher charges, if they can borrow at all. As this week's Save the Children report highlighted, the annual percentage rate on home credit can be as high as 183 per cent.
	Many low-income families have an income that is too low to secure low-cost credit, or too volatile to service loans regularly—characteristics that often make them unattractive to mainstream lenders who provide better support, although the home credit market can deal with them. Such families tend to turn to credit through need, rather than because they want to. The Save the Children report suggested that 57 per cent. of families on low income had no savings at all. That rose to 72 per cent. for lone parents.
	Clearly, we need to face the challenge of making financial services products available to people on low incomes. That challenge is a social responsibility. It is partly the responsibility of Government, and partly the responsibility of business, the voluntary sector and individuals.

James Brokenshire: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a cultural issue, too? Research carried out by Royal Mail suggested that people were more likely to play the Lotto than save. Changing all that requires significant focus. That is against a backdrop of £1.3 trillion of personal debt in the economy, which has created problems across the board that have not been thought about properly.

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In the pre-Budget report published in October, we can see that the savings ratio for this year is falling to 3.5 per cent. When the Minister and I discussed the issue last month in Westminster Hall, she seemed quite relaxed about it, but I think that the issue is important, because it means that a lot of families on low incomes do not have the money to withstand financial shocks, such as losing a job or not having overtime in a particular week, and are therefore dependent on access to credit to smooth their income and expenditure. We need to work much harder than the Government are to recreate a savings culture, so that people plan more carefully for their future and can take control of their lives, rather than having to depend on credit.
	It is interesting to note that when I went to see the Portsmouth Savers Credit Union, of which I am a member, its representatives told me that a number of people get their benefit paid into their credit union account, and leave something behind at the end of the week or the month, so that they have a reserve left for a rainy day, or to deal with a problem. That shows that people of all incomes have the desire to build up a nest-egg—to have a pot of savings that they can use when things are hard.

Katy Clark: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of what happened last year with Farepak. One of the issues highlighted following its collapse was the fact that Christmas savings clubs, and the wider pre-payment sector, are not regulated. Will he support calls for the regulation of the pre-payment industry?

Mark Hoban: We need to be careful about proposing regulation for those sectors, because it could mean that many schemes that offer an appropriate method of saving are closed down, or that the cost of operating such schemes would increase. That issue is an important part of the debate; I was about to come on to it, but I will touch on it now in the context of Farepak. A lot of people were surprised about why Farepak was so popular, but as we know from the Financial Services Authority's financial capability review and some of the research that has been done on patterns of saving and spending among people on low incomes, such people take a jam-jar approach. They want to put money aside, locked away, for a specific purpose. It is important that we think about that carefully and do not close off those options to people on low incomes. That approach to saving and budgeting is probably one of the reasons why, in the FSA's financial capability review, people on low incomes were seen as being better at budgeting and managing their money than people on higher incomes.

Anne Snelgrove: It would be wrong of us to assume that all the people who saved with Farepak were low-income families. The people who lost the most money were low-income families because they saved their £10 or £5 a week in cash, whereas others paid out through debit and credit cards and therefore got their money back through the related insurance schemes. Another issue is that 85 per cent. of the people who lost money with Farepak were female savers. In low-income families, the women do the saving, and they save in that traditional way. We need to focus our attention on how different sexes save, particularly at low-income levels.

Mark Hoban: The hon. Lady makes an important point. When we think about how to tackle issues associated with saving and access to financial products, we need to think about the behavioural characteristics of individuals. Instead of projecting on to them our own views and our own approach to managing money, we should ask them what they need and what they want. That is an important factor, which I have begun to appreciate in the two years that I have been in my present role.
	We must listen much more carefully to those on low or moderate incomes to understand how they save and how they manage their money so that, in terms of improving access to financial services products, we offer them something that they need and want, rather than something that we think they need or should have. We need to be careful of that in this debate.

Michael Weir: One of the reasons that schemes like Farepak were so successful is that people on low incomes could save small sums on a weekly basis. One of the problems with many financial products is that people are not encouraged to save small sums on a weekly basis. Credit unions are so successful because they allow people to do that.

Mark Hoban: Indeed. That goes back to the importance of designing institutions and products that match the behaviour and the needs of the people whom they are trying to serve. Credit unions are so attractive because they are willing to accept small amounts of money on a regular basis, whether those are deposits or repayments on loans. In these matters, we should go with the grain of people's behaviour, rather than trying to project how we think they should behave.
	Credit unions offer an important way of bridging the gap between mainstream lenders and the saver home credit market. The Minister is right to highlight the importance of strengthening credit unions to make them more viable and considering ways of reforming the common bond to increase their membership. From time to time we see evidence that credit unions are not sufficiently viable or sustainable.
	The recent collapse of Streetcred with about 3,000 members is a reminder to us that we must work hard to build up the sustainability and capability of the credit union network. That involves organisations like the Association of British Credit Unions working with their members, as well as organisations like Barclays working in partnership with them. Barclays has worked well, using its PEARLS scheme, to change the culture in credit unions.

Alan Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that until credit unions are able to pay interest on savings that their members place in their accounts, they may be limited in the extent to which they can perform the sort of service for savers that we all think is so important? Would he support the idea that credit unions should be able to pay interest on savings put into their accounts?

Mark Hoban: I think they do already.

Kitty Ussher: indicated dissent.

Mark Hoban: Apparently they do not. The small sum that I have with Portsmouth Savers Credit Union is clearly not earning any interest.  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry), who is my neighbour, believes that her credit union, which I believe is the same as mine, pays interest.
	There is a wider point that I want to make about sustainability—the products that credit unions can offer. One of the issues that is being consulted on, or should be, is the ability of organisations to make deposits with credit unions. I imagine that many church groups, voluntary groups and social enterprises might wish to make deposits with credit unions to help them grow, develop and lend money to other people.

Katy Clark: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the features of the financial sector that affects those on low incomes is that often, interest is not available when individuals save, whether through a Christmas savings club such as Farepak, or through credit unions, but when people on low incomes borrow, they are often charged exorbitant rates of interest?

Mark Hoban: Yes. I touched on the Save the Children report published earlier this week, which referred to the interest that is charged on the home credit market. We should pause for a moment and remember that credit unions are not universal yet. There is more work to be done to increase their coverage and to increase the number of people whom they serve. If people are turned away from mainstream lenders, they may turn to loan sharks and illegal lending. The alternative is the home credit market.
	When I first looked at home credit, I was taken aback by the high rates of interest charged, but I recognise the service that such companies offer. They are willing to lend small amounts, to collect from people's homes, to collect payments weekly and to suspend payments when a family is suffering a financial problem. Those services are expensive and that is reflected in the interest cost. When people are critical of home credit, we need to think carefully about the alternative to replace them.
	It is important to expand the home credit market and to increase data sharing. When the Competition Commission investigated home credit companies, one of the remedies that it proposed was to increase data sharing with credit reference agencies so that people could build up a positive record that would enable them to borrow from mainstream lenders. That will help people migrate from home credit to other forms of lending.
	In the document that she produced last week, the Minister referred to the loan shark project initiated by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. That was mentioned in four or five different places in a 27-page document, which was impressive repetition. Can she tell me how many people are involved in the pilot teams across the country? I think there is one team per region. Loan sharks are a big issue to tackle, and particularly with the pressure that people will be under in accessing cheap credit, we need to know how much resource is being put into that project. I will happily give way if the Minister wishes, or she may wish to respond when she winds up the debate.
	Having accessed credit from the home credit market or elsewhere, people may face difficulties in repaying the debt. It is important that we recognise the social responsibility to help people in those circumstances.
	I have touched on the third sector in the context of credit unions. We know that the Money Advice Trust, which is funded in part by the banks, Citizens Advice and the Consumer Credit Counselling Service all help to provide valuable support to people who are struggling with managing their credit. As we potentially move towards a more difficult time for householders over the next few months, it is important that these services are signposted more clearly by lenders so that they are involved in preventive work, instead of people turning to them in a crisis. That will help to solve long-term problems that we have.
	The Minister referred to the Thoresen review of generic financial advice. The debate is primarily about families on low incomes, but generic financial advice is also needed by people on moderate incomes and is part of the support mechanism behind personal accounts to provide the right advice. We need to make sure that a range of services is available to people, regardless of their incomes.
	Many such initiatives are being supported not only by the Government, but by the private sector. The retail banks helped fund the Post Office card account, which has been helpful for financial inclusion. They also supported the basic bank account and progress towards free cash machines. However, the Government are asking for an awful lot of funding from the private sector; the Thoresen review will also be partly funded by the private sector. We need a clear sense of priorities from the Government about how things are going to work. If we are to get support from business and the third sector, we need to ensure that they clearly understand the Government's priorities and that the Government send clear signals about what is important and how the priorities should be responded to.
	No one can foretell what will happen in the next few months and how people's credit situations will change. However, I suspect that we will come back to the subject before long.

Mark Lazarowicz: I welcome not only today's debate, which is timely in every sense of the word, but what the Government have done to promote financial inclusion and the availability of financial services to those on low incomes.
	As the Economic Secretary knows, last night an event was organised by the all-party group on debt and personal finance, which I chair. Among the event's themes was financial inclusion. The Economic Secretary was due to speak, but last night's debate on Northern Rock detained her in the Chamber. If she had attended, she would have found a genuinely warm welcome and a positive recognition from across the sector—from, for example, the financial services industry and advice and information agencies—of what the Government have done in this field and what they plan to do in the future. She would also have found a recognition of the policy commitment and the personal commitment shown by her and her predecessors on this issue. It is important to put that on the record.
	Having made those positive comments about the steps that the Government have taken, I want to refer to two issues on which the Government need to take further action and develop their policies. As the Economic Secretary said, there has been a lot of progress on rolling out basic bank accounts, although there has been a lot of cynicism about whether those make a difference. Like many Members, I was not so much cynical, but had certain reservations about how quickly the accounts were being rolled out. However, as the Economic Secretary has pointed out, more than 60 per cent. of those being targeted now have a basic bank account, and research shows that particularly good progress has been made among those worst affected by financial exclusion. That is good, and should also be recognised.
	However, I should like to raise some issues about basic bank accounts, and I will be interested in what the Economic Secretary says today or later about them. The first issue is the Post Office card account, to which reference has already been made. Clearly, there will be an important relationship between that account and the basic bank account. What will happen to the various proposals when the successor to the Post Office card account is finally determined? It would be good to know the Government's thinking on that as soon as possible.
	The second issue is that concerns continue about the charging policy on some basic bank accounts, particularly when it comes to overdrafts. One of the organisations that has briefed us for this debate has drawn one example to our attention. Somebody might have just £9 in their basic bank account. If they want to draw out £10—the minimum that can be drawn from a cash machine—they would fall into an overdraft of £1 and incur substantial overdraft charges. For Members of this House, £9 or £10 is not much money, but for people on low incomes who live on a margin, such things can mean the difference between being able to manage their finances and falling into a cycle of charging that can undermine their finances for weeks, months or even a year.
	More work needs to be done on the charging policies of some basic bank accounts. My final point about them is that although progress has certainly been made, that has partly been because of the pressure that the Government, the Select Committee and various other organisations have put on banks to deliver basic bank accounts. When the studies were carried out a couple of years ago, it was very noticeable that although some banks were doing their best to promote basic bank accounts, it was difficult to find out anything about others' basic bank accounts, which were clearly not being marketed as they should have been. Progress has been made, but pressure must be maintained so that the basic bank account roll-out continues and reaches those who have not yet been reached.
	The second issue is that of the availability of financial services in respect of the housing market for those on low incomes. I am sure that the Economic Secretary will have seen the important report, published yesterday by Citizens Advice, entitled "Set up to Fail". It examines the difficulties faced by many on low incomes, who get into difficulty because they cannot meet their mortgage or secured loan arrears payments. The report is excellent and I am sure that the Economic Secretary will consider it if she has not done so already. I should like to highlight some of its findings, which deserve wide publicity.
	Citizens Advice points out that citizens advice bureau clients seeking advice on mortgage and secured loan arrears are disproportionately from lower-income households and that, not surprisingly, they tend to borrow from sub-prime lenders at higher rates of interest. Citizens Advice reports that its clients often rely heavily on recommendations made by brokers; unfortunately, that advice is sometimes entirely unsuitable for the circumstances of those concerned. A particular concern was raised about people buying their council homes. They sometimes receive very poor advice on the suitability of the loans that they take out. The report also states that in some cases lenders do not seem to check whether the borrower can afford the mortgage repayments from the outset, and it sets out some powerful case studies that show how people have been encouraged to get into arrangements that they could clearly never meet. Nevertheless, they were encouraged, entirely inappropriately, to take out the mortgages.
	The report also points out that borrowers are frequently encouraged to take out additional secured loans for purposes such as debt consolidation or home improvement; again, people do not realise that they are liable to get into extreme difficulties if they remortgage when they are already in a shaky financial position. The Citizens Advice research shows that too many lenders still take court action for possession first, rather than attempting to negotiate with the borrower. Fortunately, we are not at the heights of repossession of 15 or 16 years ago, but repossession is increasing and those on low incomes are often most seriously affected.
	Finally, the report also mentions the growth of "sale and rent back" schemes. Not surprisingly, those encouraged to take out such schemes are often in financially and emotionally vulnerable positions and sell their houses for much less than they are worth. Such people often end up with a tenancy that in practice offers little security of tenure.

Michael Weir: The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point. There is another problem with such "sale and rent back" schemes; some people have been persuaded to go into them on the basis that they can get housing benefit to pay the subsequent rent. Of course, they cannot do so under the regulations, and as a result, people are being made homeless.

Mark Lazarowicz: That very good point illustrates the need for a proactive approach, ensuring the right regulation and information for those who enter such arrangements.
	The Citizens Advice report is excellent, and I commend it to the Economic Secretary. I will not go into all its recommendations, which are set out at some length, except to say that I heartily endorse its conclusion—that it is essential, particularly in the current climate, that Government strategies of financial inclusion and capability should take into account the needs of low-income home owners. I shall be interested in hearing what the Economic Secretary says about how the Government intend to do that.
	As the Economic Secretary implied in her opening comments, people on low incomes frequently lose out twice as a result of financial exclusion: first, they have low incomes, and secondly, they have to pay more for financial services because of their low incomes. They lose out doubly as a result of their poor financial positions.
	We are making major moves to improve the availability of financial services to many of those people, but it is in the nature of the financial services industry that there will always be new products, new companies and new lenders who try to find new ways of extracting that extra bit of cash from people at a time when they need money, are particularly vulnerable, and do not always give full consideration to the financial circumstances into which they enter as a result of listening to persuasive salesmen and women. The Government must therefore ensure that tackling financial exclusion continues to be at the core of the strategy in this area.
	I welcome this debate and hope that the Government will respond to the points that I have made about, in particular, the issues facing home owners on low incomes. I would also welcome an indication of the Government's thinking on how they intend to encourage the roll-out of basic bank accounts.

Colin Breed: I should first acknowledge that progress has been made on this issue in the past few months. A spotlight has been put on it by all sorts of organisations, not least the all-party group on debt and personal finance chaired by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), which has raised several important matters. Moreover, the Government have responded well in several areas. Despite the progress being made, however, we must keep the pressure on because there are so many more things still to do.
	Bank accounts are an absolute necessity nowadays, but in some banks the identity requirements even for opening an account are rather restrictive and difficult to fulfil. For instance, it is not helpful to require a utility bill from someone who does not own or rent the place that they are living in. There are also restrictive criteria for free bank accounts and the charging system. Some people simply lack the confidence to go and engage with a bank in the first place; they think that they are far too poor to have a bank account and are not encouraged to do so. A basic bank account is essential to managing one's affairs, and not to have access to one is a major problem. We need to keep the pressure on so that anyone who needs or wants one can get it easily enough; otherwise they will turn to other methods, particularly to moneylenders and other such sources.
	Credit unions have considerably increased in number. A great deal of work is going on, and as we know, there is to be a report. I hope that that will enable credit unions to expand their facilities and do other things such as taking deposits and giving interest, so that they can become community banks; I have been calling for that for some time. Once they can call themselves community banks they will be able to get the market profile that they need, and people will be able to go to them with much more understanding of what they can do to help. I hope that we can get to that stage, because community banks in other countries have really shown the way.

David Drew: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the best place to have access to a community bank is the post office?

Colin Breed: The hon. Gentleman is right. Had the Post Office not sold Girobank, I suppose that that would be a supreme example of the way in which a community bank might operate. While we are on that subject, I applaud what has been said about Christmas clubs. I hope that that idea will be well promoted, and that people will use their post office as much as they can, if only to preserve it for as long as possible. Of course, we have already spoken about the Post Office card account.
	Let me say a few words about ATMs. Many months ago, I opened the sixth free-to-use ATM. I am grateful for that facility, but we must not forget that ATMs are extremely helpful to the banks, which originally put them in so that they did not have to have more premises, counters and staff. That saved them huge amounts of money, and the idea that they should then charge for them was, to me, anathema. Although we are grateful that there will be free ATMs, I believe that all ATMs should be free, because the banks have used them in order to reduce their costs significantly—although they would probably argue against that.
	Let me briefly raise a few other issues, the first of which is trading standards departments. Significant numbers of my constituents who are vulnerable in all sorts of ways have had matters referred to trading standards departments, but these departments are inundated with work and do not have sufficient resources. Sometimes they can take up cases very appropriately, and if they had the resources, they could do that more often. I hope that the Government will consider how trading standards officers and departments can be more supportive of vulnerable low-income families when they are targeted by unscrupulous people.
	Insurance, too, is becoming an important issue. We found out during the recent flooding the sheer number of people who do not have access to contents insurance. There are opportunities for selling such products through credit unions—which will in future, I hope, be called community banks—but there are also opportunities for involving councils. There is a good scheme in Scotland that a council has negotiated with an insurance company, whereby tenants pay a small amount extra on their rent and that goes towards their premium, giving them some basic contents cover. As for car insurance, even third-party insurance is extremely expensive for some people. There is a great deal of work to do on insurance.
	The issues involved in Farepak and small savings schemes have been well aired. We need to protect alternative schemes such as that provided by post offices and those being considered by others. This is a big field in which, again, credit unions can assist. We need to encourage people to have a reasonable cushion against the kinds of things that they are going to experience.
	On mortgage and secured loan arrears—the excellent Citizens Advice report has been mentioned—banks and other lenders need to treat their borrowers as fairly as they can, and I think that most of them do. Unfortunately, however, sometimes missing one payment can trigger all sorts of problems. Court action is a last resort, but it often seems to be reached rather quickly. Mortgage protection insurance has declined, partly because it got a bad press. That is terribly unfortunate, because I suspect that in the not-too-distant future many people will wish that they had it.
	In the case of remortgaging, people are encouraged to take out second mortgages that add to their existing one, and eventually find themselves in an even bigger mess than they were originally. Cooling-off periods are provided for many other products, and that should be offered to anybody remortgaging, as well as independent advice before they sign up. Far too many people are being pressured into it on the doorstep, in the bank branch or in some other way, because they think that there is no other solution, whereas if they could stand back and be given advice on reorganising their finances instead of getting themselves into even deeper trouble, we might be able to help them far more.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Modernisation Committee has urged the Chair to use time limits to ensure that hon. Members have the maximum chance of taking part in the debate, but if hon. Members do not notify Mr. Speaker that they wish to speak in a debate, and only a few names are available when a decision is made, no time limit is put on. At least three hon. Members who are in the Chamber wishing to speak have not notified the Chair. There is no time limit, and I cannot impose one now; I would just ask hon. Members to remember that there are colleagues wishing to speak after them. If they could confine their remarks to seven minutes or so, we should be able to try to get everybody in.

Alan Whitehead: As my hon. Friend the Minister emphasised in her opening remarks, affordable credit is one of the highest priorities of financial inclusion for families on low incomes. The effort and work that the Government have put in over the past few years to approach and tackle the whole question of financial exclusion, to a large extent because of exclusion from affordable credit, has been an important priority. That is welcomed by everybody working in this field. It is a priority that has received virtually no recognition in terms of media attention. I suspect that that is because several people working in the media do not regard as significant the fact that someone cannot take £10 out of the cashpoint to get them through the week—yet, as has been emphasised, in many instances those small amounts are the difference between sinking or swimming financially, and having access to the credit that enables that to happen makes a vital difference to people on very low incomes.

Anne Snelgrove: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. This is not a sexy subject for the world's media—our media, in particular. For example, it was two weeks before there was any coverage of Farepak. The media really missed a trick on that, and they were pretty sheepish about it. Of course, we have had many thousands of column inches and television programmes about it since, so what he said is absolutely right.

Alan Whitehead: I thank my hon. Friend for that point, which underlines how this debate turns on what can be very small amounts of money in some people's eyes, but which mean life or death to other people. If someone has no bank account they have no credit rating, and they may well have to live in a cash economy. A surprisingly large proportion of the total population—certainly a large proportion of people with low incomes—simply have no assets to gain credit in the first place. Any upset in that person's cash economy, which would often seem insignificant to those inside the credit economy, can put them in severe difficulty.
	Indeed, a National Housing Federation publication of this summer, "Credit where credit's due", highlighted, among other things, exactly what that cash economy means, despite great efforts to ensure that the unbanked have at least basic bank accounts, and the progress made on that in recent years. About 24 per cent. of housing association tenants still have no bank account. More than 3 million people, of whom at least 70 per cent. are housed by social landlords, continue to borrow at punitive rates of interest—at least 164 per cent. APR. As the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) mentioned, 75 per cent. of housing association tenants have no home contents insurance at all.
	People in such a position are far more likely to be uninsured than those in households with credit access, but they are twice as likely to be burgled. They are much more likely to be using more expensive prepayment meters, and the cost, and the potential for catastrophe, is far greater than for those inside the credit economy. They are much more likely to resort to doorstep lenders, whom we have discussed today, for credit. Those lenders are, to a considerable extent, the source of the high rates of interest that the credit-excluded pay. Most of the loans to which many people resort are essentially to repair a short-term breach, and deal with short-term financial catastrophe. The requirement for such loans will perhaps have occurred because of a very short-term crisis, so most of them are for a very short term—perhaps 25 or 26 weeks at most.
	However, the 164 per cent. APR figure I mentioned is not the ceiling figure. That is the figure charged by the most reputable of doorstep lenders. In fact, roughly 177 per cent. APR is charged by Provident Financial, which is the doorstep lender with something like 60 per cent. of the doorstep lending market. Many borrowers borrow at much higher rates than that—in some instances, up to 800 per cent—and that is where the spiral of indebtedness, almost akin to the days of indentured workers, cuts in. The additional cost of servicing the debt adds to the debt itself in a wholly unmanageable way, and a spiral of debt then ensues. It is quite impossible for people in such circumstances to extricate themselves from that spiral.
	Clearly, we need to put a cap on the interest rates that doorstep lenders charge. I do not think that such a cap would undermine the availability of doorstep lending—and it is true that such lending often plays a substantial and positive role for low-income families. However, a cap based on the total cost of the loan over the known period—bearing in mind that such loans are usually for short terms—including all repayments, would not put reputable companies such as Provident Financial out of business, but would certainly attack firms that charge much higher rates of interest.
	I strongly applaud the action on loan sharks who charge very high rates of interest. It is proving very positive in dealing with them. Among other things, a team is coming to my city of Southampton, and I think that it will have a very substantial effect on that area of the market. I applaud the initiatives on financial inclusion, the moves to support cashpoints in low-income areas, and basic bank accounts, and the action on loan sharks throughout the country. We need to continue such initiatives, on the basis of looking positively at how organisations that can make a difference to the availability of credit to low-income families can work best. We have already heard about the strong role that credit unions can and should play in that move forward.
	I welcome the £42 million from the growth fund of the Department for Work and Pensions, which has mainly been applied for loans through credit unions. Those loans are important, but it will also be important to change the way in which credit unions work, so that they are a better vehicle for saving and for loans. I have already mentioned in an intervention that credit unions are hampered in structuring savings for people on low incomes simply because they cannot give interest on the savings that people bank with them. They can give a dividend over a period, but that is not the same as interest on savings.
	Perhaps in addition to credit unions being rebadged as community banks, being able to provide interest on savings could make an important difference to how they work. A loan from a credit union of £250 over 26 weeks, for example, repayable at just over £10 a week, would end up about £135 cheaper than the same loan given out by even a reputable doorstep lender. The difference that credit unions can make in such circumstances is enormous, but they must have corporate arrangements that allow them to move forward as we take further action against financial exclusion.
	It is right that corporate bodies should be permitted to become members of credit unions, and they should be able to invest in them. It is right that the common bond at the heart of credit unions should be redefined on a more flexible basis. Legislation should be introduced to achieve that. I appreciate the consultation that went out in June this year, and I hope at least that a draft Bill to make such changes to credit unions will be introduced early on, and that in the next legislative cycle, legislation will be introduced to enable them to play the role that I believe they can play strongly throughout the country in assisting financial inclusion.
	I would also like to commend the role that housing associations and social landlords are beginning to play to provide a framework, perhaps alongside credit unions, to ensure that secure community saving and lending can be undertaken. Housing associations and social landlords can provide that framework, perhaps not as the lender or deposit agents themselves, but by, for example, supplying the circumstances in which community banks can flourish, and by providing a framework for insuring home contents and other activities undertaken by tenants.
	There is a raft of possibilities that, if taken in the context of changes to credit unions and the activity that the Government have undertaken on financial inclusion, could begin to change the landscape enormously for those who remain outside the credit economy. I commend what the Government have done so far, but I believe that there are further steps that can be taken, and I hope that they will be considered soon.

Brooks Newmark: I congratulate the Leader of the House on choosing a subject for today's topical debate that is both topical and desperately in need of a full debate.
	Although I welcome many aspects of the action plan, it underestimates one element of financial inclusion. When we use the term "financial inclusion", it is tempting to focus on those who cannot access mainstream banking and insurance products, but I would prefer a definition that placed equal weight on financial education. It is a little lazy to say that access to mainstream products is the be-all and end-all of financial inclusion. If people do not understand the products to which they have access, they cannot meaningfully be said to be "included". For me, financial inclusion is achieved only with understanding. Only when people's personal finances are flexible, comprehensible and, above all, sustainable, can they be said to be financially included. The Government's favourite fiction, especially now that times are tough, is to pretend that life began in 1997 with a new red dawn—and I do not mean the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo). However, before that date, the Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury was proclaiming his prophetic vision to the country:
	"We will not build the new Jerusalem on a mountain of debt"
	he said in 1996. Yet, 11 years later, a mountain of debt is precisely what we have.
	I see the Economic Secretary smiling. She is well aware of my fondness for the vexed question of off-balance sheet public sector debt; at least it vexes her when I raise it with such persistence. However, in the realm of very large numbers that is evoked by the spectre of off-balance sheet liabilities, an even larger number lurks: that for unsecured consumer debt. Unsecured consumer credit is the ticking time bomb that is genuinely worthy of a topical debate. The explosion—and now the impending implosion—of unsecured consumer credit threatens some pretty serious subsidence to the economy, if not to the new Jerusalem itself.
	The Government's proposals place, to my mind, more emphasis on access to services than on access to advice, but they must be complementary. The Government's first financial inclusion strategy correctly identified the three key pillars of access: to banking, affordable credit and free face-to-face financial advice. However, the provision of services or credit to those people who have no experience of them is surely tempting fate.
	As the Government implement their welfare strategy of "individualised budgets" for care and payment of benefits directly to bank accounts, the most vulnerable people in our society will continue to pay the price of exclusion and of change. One example of that is well known to all hon. Members and has already been mentioned today, but I will repeat it. The loss of the Post Office card account without a viable replacement has hit many of our constituents hard and exacerbated financial exclusion.
	Today is a sad day for many of my constituents in Braintree, as Post Office Ltd has confirmed the impending closure of three branches in White Notley, Rocking Church street and Panfield lane. The closures have gone ahead despite all the hard work of parish and district councillors and the residents who relied on post office services to save the branches. So we might be forgiven for thinking that, in some areas, despite the Government's plans for investment in financial inclusion, things on the ground are slipping backwards.
	When I was a member of the Treasury Committee last year, it published a series of reports on the subject, which recognised that promoting financial inclusion is crucial to the fight against poverty. While social exclusion reaches far beyond financial exclusion, it is clear that the latter helps entrench the former. That is not an especially new idea, and, to give credit where it is due, the issue has been on the Government's agenda since 2004. However, the timing of the current action plan's publication in December 2007 is significant. Only now, after the credit crunch has started to bite, do the Government genuinely emphasise the importance of the issue. Suddenly, it is a "topical issue" and I hope that we are not too late. For many hard-working families who have got themselves into unsustainable levels of debt, or who have been forced to use non-mainstream sources of credit, the new year may not be a happy one.
	Although I wanted to focus on three issues, I appreciate that time is short, so I shall focus on only one: the cost of credit. The Competition Commission's investigation into the cost of home credit found that customers were being overcharged by some £100 million a year. The statistics on home credit companies and doorstep lenders can be truly frightening. Annual percentage rates can range from 140 per cent. to 400 per cent. and illegal lenders can offer APRs in excess of 1,000 per cent.
	I welcome the announcement that the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform has projects in all parts of the UK devoted to tackling illegal lending and that it will maintain them until 2011. However, I should be grateful if the Economic Secretary commented on the working of the Consumer Credit Act 2006, which introduced the unfair credit relationships test. It allows consumers to challenge the terms of credit agreements in court. I am also interested in whether the wide licensing and injunctive powers granted to the Office of Fair Trading to address bad practices by lenders under section 38 have been effective in practice. Why is the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform conducting a further review of consumer protection, to report in spring 2008, given that the 2006 Act is not yet fully in force?
	I am pleased that the Government aim to double the capacity of third sector lending and have provided £38 million from the financial inclusion fund. However, will the Economic Secretary confirm that the £38 million is new money? When the Select Committee examined this issue, I believe that £36 million had already been committed. If so, an extra £2 million does not seem that significant.
	To conclude, I want to revert to the availability of financial education, without which access to credit and savings products will founder. I welcome the commitment of £76 million for providing free face-to-face financial advice to financially excluded people. However, that targeted investment should be the cherry on the top of an integrated strategy, which puts financial literacy at the heart of schools and colleges and ensures that the iPod generation will become the ISA, not the IVA—individual voluntary arrangement—generation.

David Anderson: The debate is about low-income families and their access to financial services. I want to focus on the impact of companies that force people to look for financial services when they may not need to do that, and especially on a recent report by Energywatch about the impact of prepayment meters.
	I have a lot of experience of dealing with low-income families. I was a trade union representative for local government workers, school meals workers, cleaners—women who made around £80 for a 20-hour week. They did not want a bank account—they had never had one—and were frightened of the impact of having one. That is borne out by a National Consumer Council report of a couple of years ago, which clearly stated:
	"Low income consumers with bank accounts have higher levels of borrowing than those without access to bank accounts."
	People do not want to be sucked into a situation in which they may find it easier to access money.
	Some people also distrust direct debit accounts because they read the horror stories of people being hit with bills that bear no relation to their consumption and the problems of trying to rectify that. While they try to rectify that, they get into a bigger hole.
	From information that Energywatch has provided, it is clear that at least one in 11 energy consumers do not have access to a bank account. That means that they have to resort to other methods, including the use of prepayment meters. Energywatch reported last week that prepayment meters cost people £195 more for the same amount of energy than direct debit. The worst case on which Energywatch reported was that of npower, to which some people pay £304 a year—at least a third more than those paying by direct debit for exactly the same amount of energy. That is disgraceful. The average is £195.
	Last week, a pensioner on a prepayment meter will have received a heating allowance of £200. They can immediately throw £195 away, because they will get only £5-worth of energy out of that £200. It is clear that there is a detrimental impact on people who have prepayment meters. They are subsidising people like me, others in this Chamber and lots of other people around the country who are on direct debit and who can switch their bank accounts and energy accounts, thereby saving even more money—at least £150 a year on average, as shown in a report published today. Lack of access to such services leaves people worse off.
	People with prepayment meters are also—that ugly word—self-disconnecting. In the past, if people did not pay their electricity, gas or water bill, a guy would come along and cut them off, and there was a huge outcry. That does not happen now; people do it themselves. So they are not only in poverty but not keeping warm and not keeping fed, and therefore in danger of becoming ill.
	Approaches have been made to the Energy Retail Association—the trade association of energy suppliers—which has said that it would not want an equalisation of rates between prepayment meters and direct debits.  [ Interruption. ] Sorry, I am off message. I understand the Energy Retail Association's point of view, but that is clearly not fair on the people who are being made to suffer. The regulator, Ofcom, suggests that the cost to the companies of prepayment meters is £85, which means that on average they are raking in £110 from poor people, for what we do not know. Surely that cannot be fair.
	To illustrate how big the issue really is, Energywatch estimates that at least £300 million a year is spent by prepayment customers for which they do not get power, and that the figure could be as much as £500 million. Last year alone, more than 366,000 prepayment meters were installed in houses for people who were in debt. They did not want prepayment meters, but they were told that the only way they could continue to access energy was by having a prepayment meter. Again, that impacts on their ability to make ends meet and it is another reason why they will suffer from financial exclusion.
	It is clear that we need to do something other than just talk about the issue. What could be done? Companies could show some real corporate social responsibility and say that it is unfair that the poor are subsidising the rich. Instead of the consumer taking the hammerblow, they could let the shareholder pick up some of the £300 million or £500 million. They could also do what used to be done when they were nationalised—they could spread the cost of the service charge equally across every consumer, so that the one in 11 who have a prepayment meter no longer subsidise the other 10 and share the cost. If that does not work or if the companies do not agree, perhaps we in the House need to sit down and legislate, and make it so that people who are in poverty no longer subsidise people who do not need it.
	That is not the only situation where such issues arise. On behalf of one of my constituents I have previously raised in the House the situation whereby British Telecom charges people who will not go on to direct debit. As a result of that complaint, Ofcom has instituted a review of telephone charges, which has shown that some companies do not charge anything for non-direct debit payments, whereas others charge as much as £25 a quarter. That is absolutely disgraceful. Again, people who do not have access to bank accounts are being made to subsidise people who are well-off.
	Last week in business questions I raised the issue of Energywatch. The Leader of the House said that she thought that it was a good subject on which to have a topical debate. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) said that he did not agree, but I am glad that the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) agrees that it is a good topic to debate. The truth is that when we in the House do not think that it is topical to talk about alleviating poverty, we should all give up and go home.

Tobias Ellwood: It is a pleasure to participate in this important topical debate. The priority of any Government is the stewardship of the economy. A test of the social responsibility of any Government is how they support the most vulnerable, the socially isolated and the excluded.
	It is worth paying tribute to some of the initiatives that the Government have introduced since they came to power in 1997. They started off with the social exclusion unit, which was a drive to increase the use of bank accounts. As we heard from the Economic Secretary, there was also the Government's child poverty review in 2004, which was followed by the Treasury's strategy paper, "Promoting financial inclusion". In 2006, the Treasury Committee published three reports, which my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) covered in some detail. There was also the 2007 paper, "Financial inclusion", in which the Economic Secretary spelled out where money would go from 2008 to 2011. I make particular reference to the £76 million allocated for face-to-face advice for people on low incomes, which is so important in allowing people to understand what they should do with their money and what decisions they should make for the future. The question is whether that is enough. Could more be done? The fact that 35 per cent. of those receiving income support are also financially excluded shows that a lot more can indeed be done.
	One thing that will link all right hon. and hon. Members present is the fact that every time we hold a surgery we are confronted by horrendous cases of financial destitution and other financial problems in which we are asked to get involved. One big example, I am afraid, is the tax credits system. In her short winding-up speech, perhaps the Economic Secretary can comment on what is being done about those who are hugely overpaid or hugely underpaid in every constituency throughout the country, which does not help the financial management of those vulnerable people.
	One recent change that we face is due to IT. There has been a drive to save money through the use of computers and the increased push towards bank accounts. Unfortunately, one could argue that the pace of change has been too fast for a generation that has not harnessed IT in the same way that the younger generation in particular has. There is too much reliance on bank accounts, in the sense that people are no longer considered as humans but as numbers. Unless there is a support mechanism to look after those who do not have access to IT or who cannot understand it, one chunk of society will always be left out.
	That is reflected in the fact that financial services are now treated as a mass market. People have become lost and are no longer treated as individuals, but as numbers. Access is therefore far from equal. Around 1.5 million households in Britain lack any financial service products at all. A further 4.4 million households are on the margins of financial services, usually with nothing more than a bank account; and yet the financial advice that one receives when signing up for a bank account is very limited indeed. One has to pay for that extra advice if one wants any more detail about how to use one's money wisely.
	Some 60 per cent. of low-income families have no savings whatever. People who have no savings will therefore receive no advice; nor will they have any inclination to look at products such as home contents insurance, pensions or anything else. That is the area that the Government need to spend more time considering. My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) talked about the global credit squeeze, which affects all of us, particularly the vulnerable and those who want to start making mortgage payments.
	One could argue that financial inclusion means a lack of access to a range of financial services. Financially excluded people typically exhibit such characteristics as not even having a bank account or relying on forms of credit from lenders, pawn brokers and loan sharks, as we have heard. That takes people down the wrong route entirely. The consequence is that they pay more to manage their money than those of us who can afford to have a bank account and access such facilities. People without bank accounts also find it tougher to plan for the future and are even more likely to get further into debt because of that.
	We have heard some examples of that. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson), who talked about prepayment meters, which is a great example of how those on lower incomes pay more. Those who have to pay by a written cheque, for example, have to pay more than those who pay by credit or debit card. Those without bank accounts who want to have a mobile phone contract end up paying more as well. The very people who have less money end up paying more. That results in a vicious cycle, and they end up getting further and further into debt.
	We need to focus on education in this regard, and I would like to know what emphasis schools are placing on encouraging people to get a bank account and on providing them with an understanding of financial services and money management, so that they do not get into debt in the first place. People need to be aware of what they can do with even a limited amount of money. They need to put in place good habits for the future. If that does not happen, they will end up with increasing financial difficulties, and they will pay far more for any advice that they need. Among the social consequences are unemployment, relationship breakdown and health problems. Early intervention is therefore crucial.
	Progress has certainly been made, but much more needs to be done. In particular, access to advice needs to be expanded, and not only in schools. More investment is also needed, beyond the £76 million that the Economic Secretary mentioned. We need to see an improvement in the savings culture, and we must encourage better discipline in lending. We should toughen our stance on those who exploit the vulnerable by trying to get money out of people who have no money to give in the first place. Tackling personal debt and financial exclusion is an issue of social responsibility. It is the responsibility not only of the third sector and business, and of the individual, but, most importantly, of the Government.

Anne Snelgrove: I welcome this topical debate. I am going to speak of my experience of the collapsed hamper and voucher company, Farepak, which brought me into contact with families on low incomes who regarded themselves as savers. Farepak was not, in fact, an officially recognised savings scheme; it was a prepayment scheme. That is where the trouble stemmed from, because the company was not covered by the strict financial regulations relating to financial services and savings schemes.
	The savers in such families are mainly women who save for specific, short-term goals such as holidays, events such as Christmas, large items of furniture or white goods. Very few savings schemes within the financial services remit cover such goals and items. The schemes that are available are not as attractive to low-income savers as some of the schemes outside the regulatory framework. I hope that the Minister will address that point in her response, and in her work on these matters in future.
	Those savers are suspicious of credit cards and bank accounts, because of the charges that have been mentioned and because of the temptation to get into debt. They are a difficult group to reach, mainly because they are a quiet group that did not come to the fore until Farepak collapsed. Their wariness of middle-class financial services has been underpinned this year by the collapse of Northern Rock and by their disillusionment with the Government. Present and past Governments have been unable and unwilling to tackle the problems of low-income savers, or the fact that they suffer when schemes such as Farepak collapse.
	Prepayment schemes of that type have been examined by the former Department for Trade and Industry and the present Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform over a period of 20 years, and the conclusion is that they are too tricky to regulate. The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) said that he would be reluctant to consider regulation. It is difficult to regulate prepayment schemes because they cover a range of concerns, including small businesses asking for a deposit for furniture making, for example. Such enterprises could be put out of business very easily by clumsy regulation.
	In dealing with these low-income families over the past year, however, I have come to the conclusion that they will not have confidence in financial services unless we do something about prepayment schemes. They are the most attractive schemes to them, and they are going to continue to use them, and it is up to Parliament to legislate to ensure that those people can save safely in future.
	I note with pleasure that the statement made on 10 December by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform leaves the door open to reassessing the regulatory framework once the outcome of the investigation has been made available and the advice of other agencies has been taken into account. I hope that that will lead to some kind of regulation. It will be tricky to achieve, but we must do it. I thank the Prime Minister for meeting the Farepak MPs earlier this month, and I particularly want to give credit to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) for the distinguished work that she has done on this issue. The Prime Minister promised us that he would look again at the question of regulation, and I hope that he does so. I also hope that Members on both sides of the House will support this move.

Kitty Ussher: I am aware that time is short. I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions. I shall be unable to respond to all of them, owing to the lack of time, but I can give the House an assurance that all the points that have been raised will certainly be properly considered.
	I welcome the conversion of the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) to the credit union cause. It is a pity that he was not clear whether they paid interest or dividends. At this time, they pay only dividends, but we shall be looking at that issue. It has been raised in the context of the co-op and credit union consultation. He explained very fairly the costs that are incurred by legitimate doorstep lenders. What he described might well be the case, but I remain of the view that it is far better to give low-income consumers access to affordable credit so that they do not have to rely on high-interest credit providers, even if these are operating within the law according to commercial business practice.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the number of people involved in tackling loan sharks. I do not have a precise figure, but I shall be happy to provide it when it becomes available. The important thing is that we are rolling out teams in every region to address the issue, and we shall have periodic reviews of their effectiveness.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) for his kind remarks. I congratulate him, and other hon. Members, on the work of his all-party parliamentary group. I completely accept the need to keep up the pressure on basic bank accounts. We are making progress in that regard, and we will continue to do so. In my role as Economic Secretary, I meet representatives of the retail banks regularly, and I continue to make those points.
	I do not have time to respond to all the points raised by yesterday's report from Citizens Advice, but I want to pay tribute to it for the work that it has done. We shall look at the report in detail—
	 It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, the motion lapsed, without Question put , pursuant to Temporary Standing Order (Topical Debates).

Orders of the Day

Crossrail Bill

As amended in the  Public Bill  Committee, considered.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Financial provisions (disclosure of information)

'(1) The Secretary of State shall publish all relevant details as to the monies used to fund the construction and maintenance of Crossrail, beyond those monies as already provided by Parliament and set out in section 65(1).
	(2) The Mayor of London shall, not less than 12 months after the granting of Royal Assent to this Act, publish and make available to all who are eligible and registered to vote in the London Mayoral or Greater London Authority elections, a statement indicating—
	(a) the agreement he has undertaken and agreed with the Secretary of State for the proposals of building Crossrail, and
	(b) the potential financial consequences of this agreement for London.
	(3) The Secretary of State, after consultation with the Mayor of London and the Transport Commissioner for London, shall publish an annual statement setting out which bodies shall bear responsibility and liability for any costs associated with the building of Crossrail separately indicating the —
	(a) costs to date, and
	(b) projected costs to date.
	(4) The Secretary of State shall publish an annual statement setting out all relevant details relating to—
	(a) the proceeds of any land and property disposed of to date, and
	(b) the use to which the disposal proceeds of any land and property have been applied to date.'.— [Stephen Hammond.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The Bill was given considerable scrutiny in Committee and there were some consistent themes to it. The Government consistently referred to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill as the template, exemplar and the precedent for the Crossrail Bill and for many of its powers. The Minister told us frequently that the exceptional powers granted to the Government and the Secretary of State in this Bill were in many cases identical to those contained in that Bill.
	We accept that many of the exceptional powers are necessary, but we also believe that many of them require and will continue to require scrutiny. We tabled a number of amendments designed to define those powers, to ensure accountability in respect of them and to ensure proper consultation on their use. They were heard many times in Committee already, but I suspect that we will hear the words "relevant and appropriate bodies" many times again this afternoon. We also sought to ensure that compensation was available and payable to those prejudiced by the extraordinary powers being granted in the Bill, particularly with regard to compulsory purchase orders, to which I will return later.

Theresa May: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way at such an early stage in his speech. He has mentioned the exceptional powers granted in the Bill. Will he confirm my understanding that an extension of Crossrail further west to Reading—so that it did not stop at Maidenhead— would be possible without having to go through the same processes provided for in the Bill, because it could be done under the Transport and Works Act 1992 provisions? Does my hon. Friend share that understanding, and is he confident that the Government are right to say that that would be possible?

Stephen Hammond: The short answer is that that is my understanding of the Government's position, but I am not at all confident that it would not be subject to legal tests. Indeed, the possibility of providing legal advice has already been mentioned, which suggests that that may not be the case. It could be that any extension to the route would require that portion of it to go back into hybrid Bill mode so that petitioners in that area would be afforded exactly the same rights as those who were heard by a Select Committee in respect of the original route. I have to tell my right hon. Friend that it is far from clear that it will be possible to extend the route simply under the Transport and Works Act 1992, as it is likely to be subject to a great deal of legal scrutiny. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that issue; the Minister may wish to respond to it later.
	In Committee, we tabled some 75 amendments in order to ensure proper scrutiny. The Minister asked me to withdraw five on the basis that he wanted to reconsider the Government's position. He is bringing back one of them this afternoon in the form of Government amendment No. 1, which we will certainly support. If he had been slightly more far-sighted and tabled other Government amendments in the same way, we could have supported them, too.
	Let me deal with new clause 1, which has been tabled very much in the spirit of what we said in Committee—that at this stage we would revisit only matters that were particularly important to us. Clause 66 provides that
	"any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of this Act"
	and
	"any increase attributable to this Act"
	to sums already provided for by previous enactments should be provided for by Parliament. That is all very straightforward and correct. As the Minister has said previously, the Government are subject to commercial confidentiality, but are keen to be transparent in providing details of the Crossrail funding package where they can. In that spirit, I want to thank the Minister for the package and some of the briefings he gave to the Committee. That generosity was appreciated.
	However—there is always a "however"—although the Bill explains the moneys provided by Parliament, there are also other moneys provided by other bodies. Also, the Bill does not provide for an ongoing update to be delivered to Parliament on the subject of funding and costing. That is exactly what my new clause proposes to add to the Bill. Although I appreciate and accept the Minister's generosity of spirit in his disclosures so far, we as the Opposition—and who knows who may be in opposition when the Bill comes into force—need to ensure adequate and appropriate protection and scrutiny of the fundings and costings on which the Bill is built.
	My new clause thus makes four provisions. First, it provides that the Secretary of State must make details of the funding arrangements available to Parliament. Secondly, the Mayor of London, whoever that may be, will commit Londoners to high extra expenditure and potential liability, so the new clause makes the Mayor provide Londoners with a statement of the financial consequences of his funding decisions. Thirdly, it provides that the Secretary of State shall, after consultation, provide an annual statement of costs and liability. Finally, it provides that the Secretary of State shall provide an annual statement of the destination of funds raised as a result of the sale of surplus land and property.
	There is clearly a justification for all that, and it is very simple. It follows a line of reasoning that has been consistent in all our amendments. It will allow the various elements of the funding package to be scrutinised continually throughout the Bill's stages; it will allow the scrutiny to begin before the start and at the conclusion of that process; it will allow Members to give appropriate consideration to the risk to the package; it will allow scrutiny of the financial probity of the providers; and it will allow the House to assess the likelihood of financial projections being met.
	Throughout the Bill's stages we have said that we support the principle, subject to our ability to scrutinise the funding. We continue to support Crossrail in principle. There is a funding package in place, but we need to see its design, its extent and its underwriters.

Mike Gapes: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Mayor of London making information
	"available to all who are eligible and registered to vote in the London Mayoral or Greater London Authority elections".
	Why should the information not also be made available to all residents of the United Kingdom and to the House of Commons? I do not understand why the new clause is so narrow, given that it concerns a project of national importance. I speak as a London Member of Parliament, but surely, in view of the importance of Crossrail to the whole country, all the information that the hon. Gentleman is requesting should be made available to all members of the public.

Stephen Hammond: Let me refer the hon. Gentleman to the new clause as a whole. If it is enacted, the House will be able to scrutinise the entire funding package.
	Subsection 2 relates to the fact that all councils currently provide statements of what they spend, and the Mayor of London tells people what the precept is. As London taxpayers and ratepayers, we are likely—and the constituents of London Members of Parliament such as me are likely—to bear the brunt of any cost overrun. I therefore think it only appropriate for the Mayor to be as transparent as possible with Londoners.
	The other issues raised by the hon. Gentleman are already tackled by the new clause. If he wishes to persuade his hon. Friend the Minister that he should write a letter to every resident of the United Kingdom every year about the cost of Crossrail, that is his prerogative. What concerns me is that the House should be able to scrutinise the costings and funding, and that is what the new clause enables it to do.

Lee Scott: A few years ago the Mayor—the current incumbent, Ken Livingstone—said that the excess would be paid by the London business rate payer. Does the new clause not cover that as well, by providing for businesses to see what is expected of them?

Stephen Hammond: That is a good point. It is apparent from the details of the funding package generously provided by the Minister that there is a supplementary business rate to be charged. What is not clear as yet is whether, in the event of a cost overrun—which we hope will not happen—there will be an additional cost for the London business rate payer.
	Subsection (2) requires councils to do exactly what they already have to do, which is to provide an annual statement of how they spend and deliver services and how those services are paid for. It makes no greater requirement of the Mayor than that, now and in the future. Because he has committed Londoners to liability as co-sponsors, it requires him to exercise transparency for London taxpayers in regard to how he is spending their money. Frankly, it would be difficult for Members to argue against this, given that the Mayor has already written to the Secretary of State, so clearly the Mayor will have set out in that correspondence how he proposes to meet his current liabilities. If he is prepared to write to the Secretary of State to set out how he proposes to meet his funding liabilities, presumably he is equally happy to tell all Londoners how he intends to meet them.
	Subsection (3) of the new clause provides for an annual update. As we embark on the building and maintenance of Crossrail, we do not need just a snapshot; we need dynamics. We need to be able to see that if there are any problems in terms of cost overspend—or, indeed, underspend—or of delay, Parliament should be advised. The new clause provides for exactly what the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) wanted.
	Subsection (4) deals with the disposal proceeds of excess land and property. It is clear that the Secretary of State will, through the build process of Crossrail, compulsorily purchase a large amount of land that is not then needed for the operation of Crossrail, and it is necessary for the Secretary of State to be under an obligation in that respect. I am confident that, as a result of some clauses in the Bill, the Secretary of State will be forced to dispose of that land as soon as it becomes surplus to the needs of Crossrail. I am not, however, comforted about where those proceeds will go, and the subsection addresses that. If a cost is incurred in buying land that is necessary for the construction but not for the operation of Crossrail, when that land is sold those proceeds should be used to offset the total costs of the Crossrail project, or to pay compensation to people who are prejudiced by the Crossrail project during the enactment of compulsory purchase orders.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In Committee—most of the members of the Committee are present—there were occasions when allotment holders, many in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and others, were going to be prejudiced because of Crossrail, and we could not write in enough provision. Does my hon. Friend feel he has gone far enough in ensuring the redistribution of that money, as there will be a lot left over? We came across locations at North Pole and other places where a lot of money was going to be made available. Does my hon. Friend think he has gone far enough in making sure that the money is redistributed?

Stephen Hammond: I am keen to ensure that monies raised on the disposal of the surplus should be put back against the cost of the Crossrail project and provided to those who require compensation as a result of compulsory purchase orders, and I was content for that to be put in the Bill. The new clause does that, but if my hon. Friend thinks that we should have gone further, I am happy to accept that we should have done so. I hope he is reassured, however, that what I am trying to do with new clause 1 will at least satisfy what he would like to see done.

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way. I take it from what he has just said that he would also expect this new clause to cover, for example, any repayment to the local council in Windsor and Maidenhead for any infrastructure works that might be necessary as a result of Crossrail stopping at Maidenhead, if it does stop there—as he might know, I actually believe that it should go on to Reading. However, if it does stop at Maidenhead, as it would under the Bill, works would be required at Maidenhead station, and it might be necessary for the council to take some action on access roads, for example, which would, of course, be a cost for the council tax payer.

Stephen Hammond: My right hon. Friend yet again makes the point—which I am sure many Members are now assured of—that she would prefer the Crossrail project to go to Reading. If the local council were to incur such costs, and they were clearly seen to be costs of providing the Crossrail project, the intention of the new clause is that her local council or authority would be able to seek redress.
	This new clause is a sensible housekeeping measure, but it is more than that: it is a measure that provides the transparency and accountability that this House needs for a project of this immense national importance. I commend it to the House.

Susan Kramer: First, I reiterate my support for the Crossrail project, and I echo our appreciation of the Minister's generosity in sharing significant information on its funding. He will be aware that the Department for Transport's history on the procurement of major infrastructure is somewhat chequered, to put it generously. Consequently, there is a particular responsibility on this House to scrutinise the funding and the uses of those funds.
	My colleagues in Committee and I took the opportunity to table an amendment that would have had a stronger effect than the new clause. At the end of the negotiation process for the undertaker of this project, it would have required a detailed sources of funds statement and details of the uses of those funds to be provided. It would have then given this House the opportunity to examine the numbers, to make the decision as to whether they were consistent with the history of the project and with the will of the House and, if necessary, to have acted as a brake on the project at that point in time.
	The new clause does not go that far, but at least it adds to the general transparency and provides the opportunity at least to complain, even if it does not give the opportunity to act. For that reason, although I would have drafted some parts of the provision differently, I think that this would be a useful set of opportunities to include in the Bill.

Brian Binley: I stand to make an appeal to the Minister. I am hopeful that my appeal will receive some response—I am sure that it will because he is a kindly old chap. There is an obvious need for transparency in the costings of any Government project. A Government project that will take so much focus and resource, and a sizeable amount of taxpayers' money, needs to be as transparent at every level as we can possibly make it.
	Crossrail is often seen as a London matter, but of course it is not only so—as has been suggested, it impacts on every taxpayer in the land. As London will get a lot of attention with regard to sizeable infrastructure projects over the coming years, some of those taxpayers feel that perhaps they will suffer as a result of the amount of infrastructure work that will be carried out in London.

Mike Gapes: Is it not also the case that Crossrail will provide benefits of £36 billion to the UK economy as a whole?

Brian Binley: I am grateful for that intervention because it gives me the opportunity to make the point that if one examines the costings in any depth, one has no faith in any economic return projected so far. I want to return to that matter on Third Reading, because it is still open to individual judgment and the facts are not at all clear.

Kelvin Hopkins: Like the hon. Gentleman, who served with me on the Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill, I am concerned about costs. Does he agree that if the project were financed entirely in the public sector, from public borrowing, it would be much cheaper?

Brian Binley: My colleague in considering the hybrid Bill attempts to lead me into an alley that I do not wish to enter, but I might well return to it if I am allowed to comment on Third Reading.

Robert Goodwill: Is it not the case that road construction projects on contract had typical cost overruns in the region of 60 per cent. whereas when private finance initiative schemes were involved the underruns were in the region of 15 per cent.? That is surely a good argument for involving the private sector, rather than having the whole thing done on the public purse.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, I urge him to stick to his original vow and keep on the straight and narrow of the new clause before us.

Brian Binley: I was about to say that PFI for other matters was outside the remit of this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	This is seen to be a London matter, but there is concern outside London about the amount of money that London will receive for infrastructure over the next 15 or 20 years. Therefore it is even more important that taxpayers throughout the country who will contribute to the scheme can be assured that it will be run properly, costs will be kept under control and the whole scheme will be well controlled by the Government, who will have an overseeing eye. The Government's record on large infrastructure projects is not good, so we need to be sure that this case is different. I appeal to the Minister. He represents a constituency outside London, so I am sure that he will understand that point fully and, I hope, respond to it positively.

Theresa May: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley), who need have no fear because he is always appealing.
	I support the new clause for one specific reason. As other hon. Members have said, much has been made of the fact that funds for the project will be raised from Londoners through council tax and business rates—as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott) said earlier. My constituency will be the western terminus of Crossrail and Maidenhead chamber of commerce has raised the concern that at some stage Maidenhead businesses might be asked to contribute to costs in the area. However, in London, businesses will contribute on the basis that they will receive a benefit from Crossrail. It is possible, depending on other services, that Crossrail could produce a worse train service for Maidenhead and would therefore be a disbenefit.
	The Minister will be well aware of the concerns that I have raised about services, and I hope to say more about those later. However, it is important that we recognise concerns about the implications of funding for Crossrail and whether the House will be informed and have the opportunity to scrutinise and debate those issues. It is for that reason that I wholeheartedly support new clause 1.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: One of the concerns during the passage of the Bill was the changes to do with stations, mainly in Woolwich. We never quite got to the bottom of the costings, although we tried to write into the Bill a provision that the costings had to be shown to Parliament, the London Assembly, the outer boroughs and the royal boroughs. One reason that we did not get to the bottom of the costings was that we got the okay for Woolwich at a time when we were trying to get things sorted out as quickly as possible so as to get the Bill to this stage, and there are still some grey areas.
	New clause 1 would mean that some of the bits that we could not fulfil will now have the money put in. I would like to think that the Minister will push Crossrail to fill bits in, especially at Woolwich, and with the external stations at both ends and the Heathrow link. We had problems with what that would cost. If I remember rightly, that is not the responsibility of the London Mayor, although I stand to be corrected. If that is the case, I hope the new clause will help us to incorporate, as strongly as possible, the external parts.
	We also found it hard to understand the situation with EWS or East West South cross freight—

Tom Harris: English, Welsh and Scottish.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The Minister puts me in my place. That was a slip—I should have known that after spending weeks talking about it.
	I would describe EWS as barrow boys, in the nicest possible way, and it became quite obvious when many Committee members visited its operations—I could not go—that attempts were being made to pull the wool over our eyes. That is a glaring example of a case where the funding was not understood. We could not get to the bottom of what it was trying to do, or of what it wanted. The new clause, if it is accepted, will push such organisations into a position where they have to say precisely what their contribution to the costs will be. We never got to the bottom of the compulsory purchase, either.

Tom Harris: Three quarters of the new clause were debated in the Public Bill Committee. Subsection (4) is new but addresses an issue that was also considered in Committee. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) may be disappointed to hear that I will largely repeat the arguments that I made then.
	I should stress that there is a great deal of common ground between us. I agree with the general direction of the points made by the Opposition. The new clause addresses the importance of transparency and the need to provide information to the public about Crossrail. During the Public Bill Committee, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published a very slightly redacted version of the heads of terms that have been agreed with Transport for London, our co-sponsors. Copies were placed in the House Library. That document covers all the key points of the deal that will see Crossrail delivered, and I believe that colleagues found it helpful.
	We are now working with TFL to turn those heads of terms into binding arrangements. Our presumption is that the documents will be made public. As with the heads of terms, we may have to withhold some information to protect commercial interests. The Government understand the appetite for information about Crossrail and intend to make public whatever we can, subject only to the requirements of commercial confidentiality in relation either to third parties or the public sector's negotiating position. The published heads of terms explicitly state that Cross London Rail Links Ltd, the company that will deliver the project, will be required to publish information in order to ensure a high level of transparency on the progress and cost of Crossrail.
	Let me turn briefly to the specifics of the new clause. By publishing the heads of terms, the Government have, in practice, already published the information that proposed new subsection (1) would require. I have made it clear that we intend to make public the relevant detailed agreements that will implement the heads of terms, and I believe that that would deal with a large part of what proposed new subsection (2) would achieve. The financial consequences of Crossrail for London mentioned in proposed new subsection (2)(b) are a matter for the Mayor. I know that he will want to be clear with Londoners about the matter, and he is in any case subject to the scrutiny of the London assembly.
	Proposed new subsection (3) refers to the desire for ongoing information about progress during construction. I have already referred to explicit statements in the heads of terms about the provision of exactly that sort of information. Proposed new subsection (4) would require an annual statement about property disposed of and the use to which the proceeds are put. Clearly, that will not happen until the project is well advanced and, for example, construction sites are no longer required. In case there is any suggestion that, when land acquired for Crossrail is disposed of, it will somehow provide windfall gains for the Government or the Mayor, the financial schedule in the heads of terms makes it clear that the proceeds of property disposal are already included as a core part of the funding package for Crossrail. That is the exact point made by the hon. Member for Wimbledon. In other words, the proceeds from such disposals will go towards the net costs of Crossrail. The policy of transparency that I have described to the House should mean that a statutory requirement for information on how that happens is unnecessary.
	I hope that I have made it clear that the Government and the Mayor both recognise the importance of keeping the public well informed about the way Crossrail is taken forward. We have already taken steps to do that and will continue to do so.
	The hon. Member for Wimbledon referred to my constant referrals in the Public Bill Committee to the precedent that was set by the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill. That Bill set no precedent for a clause that demands the publication of such details. Our political environment today, with its need for transparency and all sorts of financial and other arrangements, is many times better than that under what I believe historians now refer to as a Conservative Government.

Stephen Hammond: Yes, historians may make that reference, but it is probable that much of the Bill will be implemented under a future Conservative Government.
	The Minister mentioned the Government's intentions several times. If he is so keen on transparency, he should have no problem with accepting the new clause, as it would allow those intentions to be made real and enable this House to scrutinise them.
	I listened to the Minister carefully, but I am not convinced by his response. Therefore, I should like to test the will of the House on the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 236.

Question accordingly negatived.

Peter Lilley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would be grateful if you could let me know whether there is any way in which the House can register its collective shame that a Government elected on a clear promise to grant the people a referendum on the European treaty are currently signing that treaty, albeit in a skulking, hole- in-the-corner fashion, in Brussels. Is there any way in which the House can register the fact that we disapprove totally of what is happening?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair at this juncture, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have ample time to make his view known as time goes by.

John Redwood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you been notified of the Government's wish today to hold a vote in the House on whether we should sign the treaty? We were told that we are not getting a referendum because the House will decide. The House will not be able to decide after the nation's word has been given; it should decide now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: These are not matters that the Chair can deal with this afternoon. As I have already said, I am sure that they will be matters for debate in the days ahead.

Clause 7
	 — 
	Acquisition of land not subject to the power under section 6(1)

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 5, line 6, at end insert—
	'( ) An easement or other right over land acquired under subsection (5) shall expire no later than the day on which the railway mentioned in section 1(1)(a) is first used by Crossrail passenger services'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in page 7, line 7, clause 10, at end insert
	'and
	(c) the development falls within the limits of deviation for the scheduled works.'.

Stephen Hammond: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that many of my hon. Friends felt that you had a way of being able to see that their points of order were taken up, rather than our having to discuss the clauses and amendments before us. Nevertheless, the two amendments are important. The first part of the Bill deals with the scheduled works required to bring Crossrail into being. The second part concerns the land on which the works will be built, and the powers that the Secretary of State requires to take temporary, or even permanent, ownership of such land, or to modify the rights of way over it. The third part deals with the planning issues that might arise as a result of those scheduled works.
	All of those measures are vital to the successful construction of Crossrail, and we discussed them at length in Committee, where I tabled a number of amendments which I believe would have enriched the Bill. I was disappointed that the Minister did not agree with me. I should like to revisit two issues using a slightly different approach to that which we took in Committee. First, amendment No. 2 relates to easements over land. We tabled a probing amendment in Committee, but the questions that we posed remain unanswered. Will the Minister give the House a reassurance about the power to acquire easements or other rights, as set out in clause 7? Does the Secretary of State or nominated undertaker require the power to access sites? The easement that is required will concern merely a small strip of land; would not the acquisition of an easement or a right be less costly, and easier to arrange? Does the Minister envisage that many such easements will be required, and does he expect that they will be required temporarily or permanently? Those questions have not been answered, and they are important.
	I accept that easements over land will be required in certain circumstances, and I certainly accept that in some circumstances an easement might be more desirable than an outright compulsory purchase. However, the issue that my amendment addresses is the length of time for which such an easement will be required. There are two ways in which a Secretary of State can gain access to land that is needed to build Crossrail: they can take possession of it by means of compulsory purchase, or they can acquire an easement over the land, which will give them a limited right to make use of the land as a right of way.
	On the first option—compulsory purchase—the Minister has given clear reassurances about the time limits involved. The land will be used for the construction and operation of Crossrail; if it is required only for the building of Crossrail, the surplus land would be disposed of, as we have discussed. The land disposal policy measures say that any land acquired for the purposes of Crossrail that is no longer required should be sold. That is all very clear. What remains unclear is the situation as regards the second option available to the Secretary of State, namely the acquisition of an easement. As I say, an easement is likely to concern a small strip of land, on the basis that it will be needed for access to land that is required to build the project. The land disposal policy does not appear to give any indication of the Government's intent on terminating easements once they are no longer required.

Peter Soulsby: I have looked closely at the amendment. The hon. Gentleman talks about the easements expiring no later than the day on which the first passenger train runs. Does he not accept that it is highly unlikely that every aspect of work on every stretch of the Crossrail scheme will be completed on that day? It is likely that the easements will need to continue after that first train runs, just to allow the initial construction to be completed.

Stephen Hammond: That is a possibility, but as the hon. Gentleman knows from his membership of both the Select Committee and the Public Bill Committee, we have discussed several times the subject of an appropriate ending day for various purposes. Sometimes the Minister tells us that for certain purposes it is the operation of the first passenger service. At other times it is the end of the interim period. It is difficult to draw up a definitive time, but my amendment seeks to give some definition to the length of time for which the easements will be available.

Peter Soulsby: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation of what he is trying to achieve, but does he accept that ending the easements at that particular stage of construction is totally unreasonable?

Stephen Hammond: I accept that the amendment may be imperfect in some respects, but we need to write into the Bill some definition to replace the open-ended nature of the provision. That is what I am seeking to do.

Mike Gapes: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that one of the great potential benefits of Crossrail coming through my constituency is the redesign potential for Ilford station, including a complete new terminus for buses—I have had discussions with local bus companies and others—and the regeneration of part of Ilford town centre. I am certain that many of those developments will be going on while and possibly after the first trains are running on the Crossrail line. What he is suggesting could cause serious difficulties for communities that will get a substantial regeneration benefit from the proposals.

Stephen Hammond: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman misses the point. The amendment is nothing to do with compulsory purchase of land. It deals with easements and rights of way. The point that he makes is therefore not relevant.
	I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) and I accept that a date definition is difficult. He would have to accept that dates referred to in the Bill are not ideal.

Mike Gapes: rose—

Stephen Hammond: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once. I know that he will make the same point again and that I will disagree with him, so let us move on.
	The powers being sought by the Secretary of State in respect of easements should need to be used only during the construction phase of Crossrail. No doubt the Minister will tell me that I am being too prescriptive, but I am trying to prevent access to land that might be required after the construction of Crossrail. I am trying to ensure that it is clear that access will be granted after the date that it is required. The amendment is sensible and reasonable. It is one that we did not discuss in Committee. It limits the length of time that an easement can be used.
	The second amendment in the group, amendment No. 3, is identical to one that I tabled in Committee, which resulted in an informative debate spanning two sessions. At the end of that debate, we gave fair notice that we intended to revisit the matter on Report. For Crossrail, we have an agreed route, scheduled works along the route, and defined limits of deviation within which the nominated undertaker may deviate when carrying out the scheduled works. All that is reasonable and fair, and it seems natural that the provisions of the Bill should therefore apply only to the limits of deviation. Or are we saying that they should apply everywhere else?
	Clause 10 provides that planning permission shall be deemed to be granted under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on land needed for the carrying out of the scheduled works. The amendment is designed to restrict the application of deemed planning permission to land that falls within the limits of deviation, as defined in clause 1. We heard previously from the Minister that the problem with such a measure is that separate planning permission would be required for land outside the limits of deviation. My question to him, therefore, is what will be required outside the limits of deviation? Are we to say that the limits in the Bill apply everywhere? That will be an extraordinarily wide provision for the Government.
	The Minister rightly said that one of the fundamental purposes of the Bill is to ensure that deemed planning permission can be obtained for the works reasonably required to enable Crossrail to be built. Where that is appropriate, there has been an environmental assessment. The works have been set out in the Bill, and they have been granted limits of deviation, should they need to deviate from their original location.The Bill already gives the Secretary of State huge leeway in respect of carrying out the scheduled works for Crossrail. In our opinion, the Government should not need the additional powers set out in clause 10 in so far as they relate to land outside the exceptional leeway that they have already been granted. The Government cannot have it both ways: they cannot say that they will build within the scheduled works and the limits of deviation and then add that, just in case that does not work, they should have powers to build outside and beyond those limits of deviation.
	The Conservative party supports Crossrail, and the project requires exceptional powers. However, those powers must be used responsibly. The two amendments would ensure that.

Tom Harris: I shall start by speaking to amendment No. 2. It might help if I explain the purpose of clause 7, which the amendment seeks to change. The clause allows the Secretary of State to acquire land outside the Bill limits through compulsory purchase if it is needed in connection with Crossrail. The clause also allows the Secretary of State to acquire additional land within the Bill limits if it is needed in connection with Crossrail but cannot be acquired under clause 6(1), as it is needed for an unforeseen purpose. Those powers, although vested in the Secretary of State, may be devolved to the Greater London authority or Transport for London by virtue of clause 60.
	Unlike the principal land acquisition power in clause 6, which deals solely with land acquisition within the Bill limits, the power to acquire land under clause 7 can be exercised only through the making of a compulsory purchase order under existing compulsory purchase legislation. Accordingly, there are well established procedures to be followed and protections for those affected by any such proposed order. The Secretary of State would be required to prepare and publicise a draft compulsory purchase order, so that those affected had an opportunity to object and to require a hearing or public local inquiry. The acquisition of any land under the compulsory purchase order, if made, would attract compensation under the national compensation code.
	The extent to which land outside the Bill limits can be acquired compulsorily is well precedented. The provisions of clause 7 are modelled on section 5 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996, the last hybrid Bill for a railway project; I suspect that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) already knew that.
	Clause 7(5) allows the Secretary of State to acquire an easement or other new right over the land in question, as opposed to acquiring the land itself—if, for example, a right of access for the purposes of occasional repair is needed. Amendment No. 2 would restrict any easement or right taken over land acquired under that power to the period during which Crossrail was being constructed. However, there are circumstances in which a permanent easement or right is required. They include situations in which access is needed for the maintenance of structures associated with Crossrail—for example, permanent sound barriers—or for new retaining walls and embankments works.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Does the Minister think that the planning legislation before the House at the moment will affect those issues in any way? I know that that involves a bit of crystal-ball gazing. Furthermore, is he aware of any elements of the Bill to which what he is saying might apply as of today, or are we just banking for the future should something go wrong?

Tom Harris: The clause in question is not for when something goes wrong; it is there to be flexible enough to accommodate unforeseen circumstances. At this moment it is not possible to make a list of all temporary and permanent easements and the uses to which they would be put. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand why I do not want to speculate about any hypothetical effect of the Planning Bill.
	Given the examples that I have just cited and my explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Wimbledon, being a sensible and reasonable chap, will agree to withdraw amendment No. 2.
	I turn to amendment No. 3. Clause 10 deems planning permission to be granted for two different categories of works. First, the scheduled works listed in schedule 1 have to be built within their respective limits of deviation. Secondly, as long as other non-scheduled works fall within the scope of the various environmental assessments accompanying the Bill, they can be built anywhere within the limit of deviation or the limit of land to be acquired or used. In addition, safeguarding work to buildings necessary or expedient in connection with the works can be carried out outside these limits, but within a specified distance of the works in relation to which the protection is provided—50 m where the work relates to an underground railway and 35 m in other circumstances.
	The geographical extent of the works and the planning permission granted by the Bill is therefore well known and transparent. For example, the main railway and running tunnels are scheduled works, as are all the new stations to be built in the central section. Planning permission for those works is therefore granted within their limits of deviation. However, some works are not scheduled works and so get planning permission only if they have been environmentally assessed. These include ancillary works such as station alterations and electrification works on the existing national rail networks within the limits of land to be acquired or used, and protective works to buildings outside those limits. I am therefore satisfied that the scope of the deemed planning permission is limited to the works that are reasonably required to enable Crossrail to be built.
	Furthermore, all works are subject to the detailed consent regime set out in schedule 7, and stakeholders will have had the opportunity to consider detailed information about the likely environmental impacts of all the works for which deemed planning permission is proposed to be granted, and if necessary to petition. The hon. Gentleman's amendment would require separate planning permission to be sought for any works authorised by the Bill that are not scheduled works and fall outside the limits of deviation of the works. That would, as I have indicated, affect a wide category of works, including unscheduled works that lie within the limits of the Bill. The effect of requiring separate planning permission to be sought for such works would be to undermine the very purpose of the Bill—that is, to obtain deemed planning permission for the works reasonably required to enable Crossrail to be built, where they have had appropriate environmental assessment. It would expose the project to the risk of severe delays as local authorities considered applications for these works under the 1990 Act regime, including possibly the holding of public inquiries.
	On the basis of that explanation, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment if for no other reason than that I hope that he accepts that undue delay to the schedule for the construction of Crossrail would result in added costs. If he is so concerned about added costs of the scheme and transparency in funding it, I hope that he will accept that his amendment would add nothing to the demands to keep the costs of Crossrail down.

Stephen Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister for calling me a sensible chap. He will know that if I say that I am interested in ensuring that costs are kept to what they were at the outset, then that is what we intend to do. I listened to him carefully, and I have looked at his previous comments to the effect that were the amendment to be pressed, that might cause some concern with the route. We have expressed on several occasions our concerns about the scheduled works and the limits of deviation. Notwithstanding that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 23
	 — 
	Overriding duty of Office of Rail Regulation before Crossrail operational

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 15, line 2, after '(6)', insert
	', but no later than 9 months after the day on which the railway mentioned in section 1(1)(a) is first used by Crossrail passenger services,'.
	The clause and the amendment will be of particular concern to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby), who said in the previous debate that he was worried about periods of time, because they focus on the infamous "interim period", which, for the purposes of the Bill, is the time between the granting of Royal Assent and the date on which passenger services commence on Crossrail. During that period, the Office of Rail Regulation has an overriding duty to exercise its access contract functions in such a way as to facilitate the operation of Crossrail. I accept that principle, which, as the Minister pointed out in another context, has, like so much of the Bill, a precedent in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996.
	That was a fine Bill enacted by a fine Conservative Government, but the Minister will recognise that even legislation such as that can sometimes be improved upon. We do not necessarily have to take the example of that Act and look no further—and the amendment would look further. It would give some clarity and definition to the phrase "the interim period".
	Clause 23(7) gives the Secretary of State the power to extend the so-called interim period. In Committee, I expressed more than once the idea that during the interim period, which takes place between the granting of Royal Assent and the day on which passenger services commence, the ORR has the overriding duty to ensure that the construction phase of Crossrail is prioritised. That is right, but should not that power be restricted? Should not the ORR have the overriding duty only during the construction phase? Is it really right that it has that overriding duty once services are up and running? I have tabled an amendment that would restrict the extension of that overriding requirement to nine months and restrict any duty beyond the interim period.
	When we discussed the matter previously, the Minister was concerned that a restriction of six months would be too short. He rejected an amendment to that effect on the grounds that passenger services will be phased in on Crossrail over a period of time. He suggested that even six months after the first service, a full service might not be operational. He repeated that view to Committee members in his letter of 6 December. On reflection, it is just about possible to suggest that. We may well see an example of that with the channel tunnel rail link and the services run on it out of the excellent new St. Pancras station. However, if we consider the possibility of phasing in services, can we really say that a Crossrail service will not have a full timetable in place nine months after operation? In the Minister's response to the Committee, he clearly implied that he does not believe that the interim period should extend for time immemorial. He hopes that it will not extend wildly beyond the time when passenger services are fully operational. As so often in this Bill, he wants the flexibility to determine when that may be. We see that that flexibility is reasonable.

Peter Soulsby: I understand what the hon. Gentleman seeks to achieve, which is the construction of the whole scheme, and to have it open and carrying passengers. Does he not accept, however, that setting such an artificial limit could have a perverse effect? Because the clock would start ticking, as it were, on the day that the first passengers were carried, the artificial time frame he seeks could have the perverse effect of delaying completion of the scheme.

Stephen Hammond: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's logic, and I can see that one might want to be tempted by it, but I am not tempted enough.

Lee Scott: Does my hon. Friend agree that another way of looking at the matter is that applying pressure, in the sense of getting the vital Crossrail project completed within a certain period, would be advantageous rather than a handicap?

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend is yet again being helpful and putting a point that I would wish to make; I am grateful to him for that.
	We accept that there has to be some flexibility, but as so often with the powers that the Minister and the Government seek under the Bill, it seems to me that such powers should not be open-ended, and that they should be restricted in certain cases. I am concerned that we are told time and again that the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act is a fitting precedent for Crossrail legislation. I might have been tempted to accept that precedent if I had not had the good fortune to serve on the Committee that considered the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill. It includes several clauses, which, taken together, have the effect of undermining the argument both for the interim period and for restricting that interim period. That is extraordinarily inconsistent. Sometimes we are told that the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act is an extraordinary and helpful precedent, and at other times we disregard it. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill is clever and has the potential to turn the interim period into an indefinite period—but it is inappropriate to allow the interim period that we are considering to become indefinite.
	If we are to take the 1996 Act as a precedent for the Bill, we must assume that the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill will, when enacted, form some sort of precedent for any future Crossrail (Supplementary Provisions) Bill. We must therefore ensure that we will not be faced one day with the prospect of an indefinite extension to the interim period through the precedent of some future Act.
	I do not want an indefinite period during which the Office of Rail Regulation must prioritise Crossrail—or, indeed, High Speed 1. It is neither necessary nor desirable. The ORR is an excellent regulatory body, which should oversee all parts of the rail network. It should not have a legal obligation to favour one part of the network over another, because that might compromise its independence once the operational phase begins.
	I reiterate that we wholly support Crossrail. We understand that extraordinary powers will be required to build it. We appreciate that the Secretary of State needs flexibility but, once Crossrail has been constructed and the passenger services are operational, many of the extraordinary powers should become superfluous. Crossrail should fit in with the rest of the network.
	The amendment would grant the flexibility that the Secretary of State seeks, but restrict the extension of the interim period to nine months. I hope that that would allow for full phasing in of Crossrail passenger services and be sufficient to reach a stage whereby the construction period is complete and Crossrail no longer needs the regulator's special help. That is an important point, which the Minister acknowledged in Committee. I hope that he will acknowledge it now, especially given our discussions about the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill.
	I hope that the Minister can grant Conservative Members some joy in the festive season and accept our reasonable amendment.

Theresa May: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene briefly in the discussion about the overriding duty placed on the ORR. When the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and hinted that it might take longer than nine months for the Crossrail timetable to be fully up and running, I thought that he must be a customer of First Great Western. Several years after it took over the timetable, we are still trying to ensure that the service runs on time and reliably. Notwithstanding that, I expect that the Crossrail timetable can be implemented rather better than that on which we are working with First Great Western.
	I support the amendment because I am worried about giving the power to the ORR even for a limited period, let alone for the unlimited time for which the Bill provides. The duty enables the ORR to say that Crossrail comes first and that the need to get Crossrail up and running and do the works for it must override every other consideration on the railways.
	I have already referred to the problems with First Great Western. My constituents are willing to see Crossrail put in place, but they would have concerns if they were consistently told that works that were necessary to improve services on the main lines and the relief lines for regular commuter services were being put on the back burner purely because Crossrail came first. As I understand it, that is the implication of clause 23 as drafted. I have reservations about that, because although I can talk only for my constituents, at the western terminus of the line, I fear that the same would apply to those on the First Great Western main line down to Reading. I would have thought that similar concerns would also apply in other parts of the route that the Crossrail line will take.
	We should certainly not give the Office of Rail Regulation an unlimited ability to act through the Secretary of State's powers. It must be limited. Nine months is a reasonable time within which to expect Crossrail to have the timetable up and running after its construction and the start of the first passenger services. I therefore fully support my hon. Friend's amendment, and trust that the Minister will give us reassurance about the impact that the construction of Crossrail will have on services on the First Great Western line.

Tom Harris: I am quite prepared to offer the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) a merry Christmas, but not before the successful Third Reading of the Bill. I hope that I can persuade him that his amendment is unnecessary, and perhaps even get him to admit that the wording is intentionally mischievous. It is during the interim period that the Office of Rail Regulation would have an overriding duty in the exercise of its access contract functions to facilitate the operation of the prospective principal Crossrail services.
	To deal briefly with the comments of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), it is sometimes frustrating that hon. Members in all parts of the House constantly demand that new rail lines be built, but only provided that there be no unforeseen consequences for adjacent rail lines. In the case of Crossrail, there will clearly be unwanted consequences for other rail services, because we are building a new railway. Given the level of investment that we expect the public and private sectors jointly to make to the project, it is unreasonable to tell prospective investors that we will not give overriding precedence to the requirement to build and operate Crossrail services. That is not a particularly easy message to get out, but it underpins the entire Bill. If we are going to have a Bill, with the necessary investment, we must guarantee 100 per cent. that the construction and services will operate completely unimpeded. That is the view of the Government; I hope that it will ultimately be the view of the Opposition, too.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: On a point of clarification, throughout the Select Committee considering the Crossrail Bill we kept hearing Crossrail say that there would be minimal disruption throughout the system. I agree with the Minister that the project is vital and must go through, but we on the Committee were assured that there would be minimal disruption, even in the stations where there are to be major structural works, which is what I suspect the Minister is alluding to. Does he not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon at least somewhere along the line and say that although there will of course be disruption, there must be a parameter determining how it affects First Great Western—the railway company in my area, too—as it could have an adverse affect on what we are trying to do? Otherwise, the Minister will confuse the issue.

Tom Harris: I can confirm that it is certainly the intention of both the Bill and the Government that where disruption occurs, it will be the minimum necessary required to build and operate Crossrail. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would assume that anyway.
	The Secretary of State may need to extend the period, as specified under subsection 7. For instance, Crossrail services are expected to be phased in over a year. I referred earlier to the wording of the hon. Member for Wimbledon's amendment and his proposal for a nine-month requirement. On the day that the funding package for Crossrail was announced, it was publicised in a number of newspapers and on the Department for Transport website that the Government intended to phase in Crossrail services over a period of 12 months. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that, so it is surprising that he has chosen a period of nine months—three months less than we have already announced—for the phasing in of those services. However, I am sure that he has had some fun with his proposal. I shall, none the less, ask him to withdraw it.
	For a new railway of the magnitude of Crossrail, it would be unwise to attempt to introduce the full service to all destinations overnight. In this context, it makes sense for the Office of Rail Regulation not to grant access rights to other railway operators that would frustrate the phasing in and stabilisation of Crossrail services. Once the full Crossrail service is in operation, it will have—and will exercise—all the appropriate access rights, and Network Rail and the ORR would not then grant conflicting access rights. Timetabling and capacity allocation would happen by means of existing industry mechanisms and duties. There would consequently be no need for the protection afforded by clause 23, so the interim period naturally has a finite useful life. There would be no point in the Secretary of State extending the interim period beyond its useful life, because the path would already have been granted and could not be taken away.
	As I indicated during our previous debate on this matter, and as I further explained in my letter following the Committee, an artificial time-limited cap on any extension of the interim period would be undesirable at this stage of the project development. We cannot predict with certainty what practical considerations in respect of the phasing in of Crossrail services might arise 10 years from now.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I should also like to place on record the fact that I am grateful to him for the time that he has given to me, and to other Members of Parliament, in connection with the operation of First Great Western services, which interacts with the issue of Crossrail. As I understand it, he is saying that when the time comes for Crossrail services to begin, Crossrail will take precedence on the slow lines that currently carry slow and semi-fast First Great Western services through my constituency. I am concerned that my constituents in Maidenhead and Twyford could find themselves with a greatly reduced service and amenity when Crossrail is introduced, because they might lose First Great Western services and end up at the end of a metro line, which would be a slow stopping service that would take twice as long to get to Paddington as it does at the moment.

Tom Harris: I have spoken to the right hon. Lady about her concerns regarding the effect of Crossrail on Maidenhead. I understand her concerns, but I hope that she will understand that I am loth to speculate on the timetable for Maidenhead in 2017. She has already had a commitment from me that whenever the Great Western franchise is renewed, we will ensure that due attention is paid to the points that she has raised about the level of Crossrail services at Maidenhead. I hope that she will forgive me if I do not dwell on the specific question that she has asked, given that we are still about 10 years away from the first Crossrail services coming into operation.
	As I have said, we cannot predict with certainty what practical considerations in relation to the phasing in of Crossrail services might arise 10 years from now. Nine to 12 months is probably as good a guess as any other at this stage for the time for which the interim period might need to be extended to facilitate the orderly phasing in of Crossrail services. However, I hope that the hon. Member for Wimbledon will accept that we cannot legislate on the basis of a good guess. I hope that hon. Members will, for those reasons, appreciate that the length of any extension to the interim period would most sensibly be determined nearer the time, not 10 years in advance. I am not persuaded that an artificial, and completely random, cap set this far ahead is the answer. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond: I have listened carefully to the Minister's explanation. As usual, I have some difficulty with the idea that we can use a Bill for a precedent at one stage, but disregard it when it does not suit us. I find that particularly troubling. I have no problem with the principle that the Office of Rail Regulation should have the overriding duty during the construction phase or during the phasing in. Our concern is the length of that phasing-in period. Notwithstanding what the Minister has said about one year, it seems to me that nine months to get a relatively simple service—it is not as if it is the most complex of services—

Tom Harris: Twenty-four trains an hour.

Stephen Hammond: If one is to believe the Minister and his wonderful HLOS—high level output specification —statement, that should not be any problem for the Government. Let us not go down that line, however. Let us look at the provisions for the interim period. The amendment proposes that there should be some limit to the time allotted for the phasing in of operations. Why should it be open-ended?

Theresa May: rose—

Hon. Members: Not again!

Theresa May: I recognise the groans heard around the Chamber, but the Minister made a comment from a sedentary position that impacts on Maidenhead and its services. I believe he said that the Crossrail service would be running 24 trains an hour. I am at a loss to understand that, given that we have been told that only four trains an hour would be coming out to Maidenhead.

Stephen Hammond: That is a very interesting intervention from my right hon. Friend. I do not know the answer to it, but I am sure that the Minister will want to jump up and intervene any moment now to explain what he said. No, it looks as if the Minister does not wish to intervene, which probably means that the service to which I was alluding is even more simple than I suggested, making the restriction that I am looking for even more appropriate.

Tom Harris: Since I always like to help the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Lady, let me say that the service frequency to which I referred relates to peak-time services through the central tunnel.

Stephen Hammond: I am grateful, as ever, for the Minister's help. However, I am not convinced by his arguments on this amendment in any way, shape or form. The whole purpose of our scrutiny of the Bill has been to ensure that although we accept that exceptional powers are required, those powers should have some restrictions on them; they should be scrutinised and those exercising them should be accountable. That is what the amendment does. It is a sensible amendment and I am not tempted to withdraw it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 117, Noes 248.

Question accordingly negatived.

Richard Benyon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Quite by chance I was looking through the raft of ministerial statements that have been placed in the Library today, when I discovered that it has been announced in a statement that the only military base left in my constituency is to be closed. The 42 Engineer Regiment and the Royal School of Military Survey are to be affected. The closure will result in a number of redundancies in my constituency, and very long-term links with the town of Newbury will be severed for ever. Do you not think it a matter of basic courtesy to the local community and to myself, as the local MP, that I should have been informed at some point in this process, and that such catastrophic news for the local community could have been broken to it in a slightly less arbitrary fashion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The timing and content of written statements are entirely a matter for the Government. They are not something that the Chair can deal with. The comments that the hon. Gentleman has made are now on the record, and, no doubt, everybody will take note of them.

Alan Meale: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I say that I find the situation bewildering? I am sure that you are correct in this, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is making a valid point. On such important matters as that, Members of Parliament should be advised in advance of any serious decisions taken about a constituency matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Again, I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, and the fact that he has made it simply reinforces the point of order. I trust that the Government Front-Bench team will take note of it.

Tobias Ellwood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the same point of order?

Tobias Ellwood: It is in a similar vein, but—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I really think that we must move on. I think that I have dealt with that point of order.

Clause 26
	 — 
	Amending pre-commencement access contracts: construction of Crossrail

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 17, line 19, after 'State', insert
	'and such other persons (if any) as it considers appropriate'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 1.

Stephen Hammond: Those hon. Members who had the joy of serving on the Public Bill Committee with me will know that we raised a number of concerns about consultation in that often informative and good humoured Committee, and had useful discussions about the subject. The Minister often dismissed my amendments outright, but at other times he appeared to be tempted by them. With that in mind, may I thank him for his letter to Committee members dated 6 December, in which he expanded on some of the points that he raised in Committee about consultation? He made it clear that he was not opposed to the principle of enlarged consultation, but he suggested that there were a number of cases where that process would not be either desirable or practical. He also accepted in that letter that one of the many amendments that I tabled on consultation had some merit.
	In Committee, the Minister said that he more or less accepted the principle of an amendment that I tabled, and it is now in the form of Government amendment No. 1. It is marginally different from my original amendment and I assume that the wording needed to be tightened up or made legally acceptable. In any case, I hope that we now have a practical and workable consultation procedure. We therefore welcome Government amendment No. 1 and we are disappointed only that the Minister did not accept more of our suggestions.
	Amendment No. 5 is in the same vein. It relates to consultation, and I tabled a version in Committee. The Minister was tempted by it, and pledged to look at it with his officials. I hoped that we might see it tabled as Government amendment No. 2, but unfortunately that has not materialised. I have therefore tabled my amendment, and it uses the same wording as the Government use in Government amendment No. 1. It has the same format and I hope that the Government will accept it on that basis. As it replicates the Government's language, it should be consistent with the Government amendment, which should ensure that the phrasing is legally binding, unambiguous and workable.
	I shall explain why consultation is so important. Crossrail is a massive project that will affect a lot of people. We believe and hope that more people will be positively affected, at least in the long term, than will be adversely affected. None the less, those who will be affected in any way should have the right of consultation. The consultation procedures already employed have been very successful. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and his Select Committee team on such sterling work in hearing from those people who wished to present their case. It is undoubtedly right that the Bill is better for having gone through the hybrid procedure and allowing that consultation. The decisions and hearings of the Committee have enhanced Crossrail and improved its legitimacy in the public eye.
	Consultation on railway matters is important. The Bill will give the Secretary of State new powers and will modify existing powers, and that will have the effect of interfering with current procedures and the norms of the railway industry. I accept that some of that is necessary and we do not object to the principle. However, we want to be certain that it is done in a way that is transparent and accountable, and that the affected parties are consulted. It is in that context that I return to clause 26, which deals with the amendment of the pre-commencement access contracts by the Office of Rail Regulation.
	Clause 26(4) gives the Office of Rail Regulation the power to require concerned parties to submit proposals for how it should amend the contracts, and that is welcome. Clause 26(5) provides that the ORR must also consult the Secretary of State as part of the process, but that is where the consultation process ends. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that the ORR is open to the concerns of other appropriate and relevant parties, and consults them in an appropriate and relevant fashion. The Minister said in Committee that nothing in the clause prohibits the regulator consulting in such a manner. That is true, but it is not enough. If the Minister accepts that we can amend the Bill elsewhere using words that are similar to
	"such other persons (if any) as it considers appropriate",
	surely the ORR should have the duty to consult with persons other than the Secretary of State as it considers appropriate. That would be consistent with the duty of consultation. We all agree on the value of consultation and we agree that the ORR could consult in such a way. Why should we not make it an obligation and put it in the Bill?
	In Committee, the Minister accepted that the amendment had some merit. I believe that it still has. In fact, it has more than that. It is right that if the Government are prepared to accept wording elsewhere that makes a minor change but increases consultation, making it more binding, they should do the same in this clause. I hope that the Minister will reflect on my remarks. The Government have accepted the principle in Government amendment No. 1, and so it would be only right and proper to accept it for clause 26, too.

Tom Harris: I do not intend to accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment, although I am grateful for the support that he has given the Government amendment. I think that he has misunderstood the reasons behind my reluctance to accept the amendment in Committee and today. I assure him that I fully support the intention behind his amendment. I agree with his points on consultation. I do not want him to take away from this debate the assumption that I oppose the amendment because he has used the wrong wording. That is not why I am resisting the amendment. As I shall explain, his reservations about consultation are taken care of by industry procedures.
	Consultation on railway matters was raised a number of times in Committee. There is no disagreement on the principle of consultation. The point at issue is the extent to which it is desirable or sensible to be prescriptive in the Bill. As I explained in Committee, there are many places in the Bill where it is unnecessary to include an authority or obligation to consult more widely, because it does not preclude that. It is not always desirable in cases where there is a specific consultation obligation to predict who appropriate consultees should be. For example, when the Secretary of State or the ORR is placed under a duty to carry out a consultation, they would address who should be consulted as part of a good administrative process.
	As I agreed in the debates, there are parts of the Bill related to railway matters where an amendment to clarify the natural extent of the consultation would not be without merit, although it could arguably be unnecessary. However, the Government intend that the railway powers in the Bill that deal with access to Crossrail services on the national rail network will be cut back substantially in the House of Lords. That is in the light of progress made using normal industry processes, not least the consideration of the Crossrail access option for access to Network Rail's network. It is appropriate to consider consultation requirements when hon. Members have argued that amendments could be valuable and when the railway powers are reviewed following the outcome of consideration of the Crossrail access option.
	In that context, I turn to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), which is familiar from Committee. The amendment would require the ORR to invite representations from any other parties that it considers appropriate, in addition to the Secretary of State, when it considers that an access contract needs amending because use of the railway facility to which it relates will be affected by the construction of Crossrail.
	As I have explained, an amendment of this nature is not necessary. The ORR does not need the authority to consult as widely as it considers appropriate—indeed, nothing in clause 26 prevents it from doing just that. The ORR has established policies on consultation and it has a track record of engaging in very open consultation on access matters. In practice, the ORR would need to consult at least the parties to the affected access contracts before it could decide whether and how those contracts needed to be amended. Additionally, clause 26(4) enables the ORR to require those parties to propose what directions should be given and, logically, that would engage them in the consultation process.
	Ultimately, it can be left to the ORR to decide what is appropriate in this case. As I have stated, amendments to the relevant clauses will be sought, with the aim of enabling their lordships to consider general matters of Crossrail-related railway policy in the light of the wider review and of the potential reduction in those clauses' scope.
	Government amendment No. 1 is modelled closely on an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon in Committee, and on the consultation theme that he has regularly discussed. Clause 30 would provide for access to infrastructure associated with the new central tunnel—access that would not be provided for in the Crossrail access option in any event. Hence, the power may be held in reserve until a further access option is secured in relation to that new infrastructure. As a result, now is as good a time as any to amend this part of the Bill.
	In effect, clause 30 requires the Secretary of State to consult the ORR on the terms of an access contract for services using the Crossrail central tunnel or associated facilities. Government amendment No. 1 requires the Secretary of State also to consult any such other parties as she deems appropriate on the terms of the access contract to which an exemption under clause 30 would relate. There is a conscious parallel with the consultation obligation in clause 24(4)(c).
	I have to say that I do not believe that the Government amendment is strictly necessary either, as there is no doubt that the Secretary of State would wish to act in the way that I have described. However, given the context of what I have said about the railway powers in general, on this occasion I accept the value of a visible requirement, and I therefore hope that the House will support Government amendment No. 1.
	As I said in my letter to hon. Members following the Public Bill Committee, I hope that Government amendment No. 1 can be taken as an indication of our genuine intention to keep matters relating to consultation in mind when we come to review the rest of the Bill's railway powers more widely in the House of Lords. Therefore, I hope that what I have said reassures the hon. Member for Wimbledon and that he will feel able to withdraw amendment No. 5.

Stephen Hammond: I listened carefully to what the Minister said, and I am discovering that life in opposition is all about small victories. He considers that my amendment has some merit, and I am grateful for that—and for the fact that he and the ladies and gentlemen who at times provide him with divine inspiration have tabled Government amendment No. 1. That is a small victory for the Opposition.
	Anyone who attended the Public Bill Committee will have heard what the Minister said about amendment No. 5 before—almost verbatim, in fact—but I still have the same problem with this part of the Bill. The Minister said that the ORR has a history of open consultation, and that it can decide whom to consult. If so, why should it not be obliged to consult those whom it considers appropriate? That would be fair and sensible, and it should be included in the Bill.
	I remain unconvinced by the Minister's argument that there is no need to include in the Bill the obligation on the ORR that amendment No. 5 would impose, just as he is not convinced that Government amendment No. 1 is necessary. Even so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 5.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 30
	 — 
	Crossrail access contracts: disapplying requirements for approval

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 20, line 37, after 'Office of Rail Regulation', insert
	'and such other persons (if any) as he considers appropriate'.— [Mr. Tom Harris.]

Clause 57
	 — 
	Application of act to extensions

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 34, line 30, leave out from 'applies' to 'in' in line 31 and insert
	'shall apply the provisions of this Act'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 8, page 34, in line 34, leave out
	'may also provide for any provision'
	and insert
	'shall also provide for the provisions'.
	No. 9, page 34, in line 36, leave out subsection (4).

Stephen Hammond: The amendments are very much of a probing nature. When we reconsidered the Committee proceedings, it seemed to me that we had not finally sorted out a number of things. We said that we would need to return to them on Report because the Government's intentions were not clear. That point was at the heart of the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May).
	Clause 57 relates to the statutory framework that would govern a future extension of Crossrail. We have some concerns about that, so we want to understand exactly what the Government intend. Our first concern relates to why only some of the Bill's provisions would apply to an extension, and the second relates to the possible need for legal re-hybridisation if there were an extension. The core question is whether a substantial extension would require the same treatment as the original Crossrail route.
	Our first concern is addressed directly in the amendments, which would have the effect of ensuring that there was no selectivity in applying the Bill's provisions to any extension of Crossrail. Subsection (4) states that certain provisions of the Transport and Works Act 1992 will be specifically excluded from applying to an extension. They relate to the compulsory acquisition of land, heritage protection controls and rights of entry in relation to English Heritage. We need reassurance from the Minister. What is it about those provisions that makes them applicable to the current route, but not to an extension? Those provisions will be specifically excepted from an extension to Crossrail.
	As for the remainder of the Act, the Government want the power to pick and choose which provisions would or would not apply to an extension. That seems inconsistent and irresponsible. We have subjected the current route and the current legislation to an extensive and intensive period of parliamentary scrutiny, so if there were an extension to the route there would be an injustice if petitioners in that case were not able to do the same.
	When I raised the issue in Committee, the Minister said my proposal would not be workable. Are we saying that just because the Minister considers something unworkable we will not put justice into effect? Does it mean that we should not introduce legally binding provisions? Apparently, the Minister's rationale was that whereas the powers required to build the current Crossrail route are defined by an Act of Parliament that has authority to disapply and modify the application of existing legislation, an extension to the route only needs legislation under the Transport and Works Act, which does not have such authority?
	Is the Minister satisfied that the point is merely technical? Is he happy that the clause allows only certain elements of the Bill to apply to an extension? Is he satisfied that a substantial extension of the route—perhaps from Maidenhead to Reading—would be dealt with only under the provisions of the Transport and Works Act, or does he think that if he took legal advice he would find that re-hybridisation of that part of the route was required and primary legislation was needed?
	It seems unusual that there should be one legislative scrutiny regime for the current Crossrail route but a different one for any future extension. It is possible to understand why relatively minor changes to the Crossrail network—a new facility here, a station renovation there—would be dealt with under the Transport and Works Act and would not warrant any exhaustive procedures. However, where Crossrail is being extended—in the exact circumstances that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead outlined—should the people affected have the right to take part in exactly the same sort of consultation procedure afforded to those affected by the original route?
	Legal advice from counsel, which is already circulating among Ministers and the Opposition, suggests that this is an interesting part of the law. The Government's reassurance that an extension to the route would be covered purely by a Transport and Works Act order is at least contestable. The Minister needs to give the House some reassurance. I see in the Chamber a number of hon. Members who served on the Select Committee for a long time. They will know better than most that the plans for constructing Crossrail provoked a large number of organisations and people, who felt that their lives and businesses would be affected by the project, to come forward and present petitions to the Committee. The Select Committee procedures gave them the opportunity to have their say and to be heard.
	If the route of Crossrail is to be extended, are the Government satisfied, in legal terms, with a situation in which people whose homes or businesses are affected by the extension to the route will not have the same protection and rights afforded to those affected by the original route? The Government are going to leave themselves in a very difficult position—one that will be open to legal challenge. Is that desirable? The Minister needs to give the House a clear indication that he has consulted his officials and is absolutely convinced that there is no possibility of a legal challenge to the Bill on the basis that any extension to Crossrail would be dealt with purely by a Transport and Works Act order.
	These are probing amendments. We remain extremely concerned that if the clause stands as it is, there is the potential for a legal challenge to the whole Bill.

Tom Harris: Clause 57 allows any Transport and Works Act order that relates to a proposed extension of Crossrail or to the provision of a facility connected with Crossrail to apply any provision of the Bill, with any modifications necessary to the order, or provide for any provision of the Bill to have effect as if the extension were part of Crossrail.
	Perhaps I can take a moment to explain the purpose of clause 57. As the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) will know from our earlier debates, the Bill establishes a bespoke regime for Crossrail, modifying or disapplying various bits of legislation and replacing it with a tailor-made regime, based heavily on the regime created in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996. He will recall that, for example, the Bill creates a bespoke planning and railway regulatory regime for Crossrail. Were a TWA order subsequently sought for an extension to Crossrail—say to Reading or Ebbsfleet—or for a new Crossrail facility such as a new station, that order could not necessarily apply the same regime established by the Bill to those works, because TWA orders, as a form of delegated legislation, are limited in what can be done by way of modifying the application of legislation.
	That is not to suggest that a TWA order could not extend Crossrail if this provision did not exist. If a decision were taken to extend Crossrail to Ebbsfleet or Reading, for example, it would be possible to do so under the existing powers to make TWA orders. It is simply that any extension would then have to be built under a different regime. The clause would simply allow any such TWA order to make the provision needed to ensure that any extension or new facility is subject to the same regime as the Crossrail scheme covered by the Bill.

Theresa May: I suspect that I should declare an interest in that I live alongside the railway line between Maidenhead and Reading. It has long been my contention, and that of other Members of the House, the business community and local councils, that Crossrail should extend to Reading. Given the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), I would be grateful if the Minister could make it clear that it is the Government's absolute position that an extension to Reading would be possible simply by the exercise of a Transport and Works Act order, and that there would be no legal challenge based on the fact that that order did not involve the sort of consultation that has been necessary in relation to this Bill. A lot of comfort has been taken locally from the fact that an extension to Reading would be relatively easy because it could be done under a TWA order. I am concerned about the legal questions that have now been raised.

Tom Harris: The right hon. Lady is correct in her assumption. As I think I said in the Public Bill Committee, the Government are committed to making a decision on the safeguarding of the route from Maidenhead to Reading for future possible extension of Crossrail to Reading. I want to make it absolutely clear that when we make that announcement on the safeguarding, it will not represent any change at all to the Government's position on the construction of Crossrail under the Bill. It will terminate at Maidenhead, and regardless of whether we safeguard the route to Reading, there are absolutely no plans to extend construction to Reading. However, she is correct in her assumption that that can be done through an order under the Transport and Works Act. She asked whether I could be certain that the decision would face no legal challenge. I am confident that such an order would result in no successful legal challenge; whether an unsuccessful legal challenge is made is another matter.
	We believe that the structure that I have described makes perfect sense. It would be confusing and unhelpful if one regime applied to parts of Crossrail and another applied to other parts. There are safeguards: certain provisions of the Bill should not be applied, such as those dealing with the extension of compulsory purchase powers to listed buildings, buildings in conservation areas and ancient monuments. Those issues are more appropriately dealt with under the TWA order process, in which the circumstances of the proposals for the extensions, and the objections to them, will be considered. Of course, any TWA order that would apply to the Crossrail Bill regime would follow the normal procedure for such orders. Those affected would have the opportunity to object to any aspects of the Crossrail Bill regime proposed to be applied by an order, and to have their concerns heard by an independent inspector as part of the TWA order process.
	I do not see how I could justify asking Parliament to set up another Select Committee to hear petitions, when objections can be dealt with perfectly satisfactorily in a public inquiry. There is nothing remarkable about the works needed for extensions to Crossrail. Similar works in England and Wales have for many years been successfully dealt with by means of the TWA order process, and there has been full public involvement. Clause 57 merely ensures that if extension is merited and approved under the TWA order process, the regime will be consistent with the Bill.
	Another point that the hon. Member for Wimbledon may want to consider when deciding whether to withdraw the amendment is that the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 did not contain a provision for a station at Stratford International, but when the proposal was added to the scheme, it was done under a TWA order.

Stephen Hammond: I have said already that I think the 1996 Act was a fine piece of legislation from a fine Government, but it is not true that all pieces of fine legislation cannot be improved later by the scrutiny of the House.
	I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I have no wish to incur the cost of setting up another hybrid Bill Committee to consider any extension to the route; that was not the purpose of my amendments. My purpose was to ensure that we were as certain as we could be that if different procedures applied to different parts of the Crossrail route, and that route was extended, there was no real possibility of a successful legal challenge. The Minister rightly said that he could not be certain that he would not be subject to a legal challenge, although it might fail. I was reassured that he has clearly taken good advice. He is happy to tell the House that he is convinced that although differing regimes would apply to different parts of the route, an extension can be built under the Transport and Works Act, and there is no reasonable prospect of a successful challenge. That was the reassurance I sought, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

William Cash: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister signed the treaty this afternoon in breach of the European scrutiny resolution of the House of Commons of 17 November 1998, which was passed by this Government. The resolution clearly states:
	"No Minister of the Crown should give agreement in the Council or in the European Council to any proposal for European Community legislation . . . which is still subject to scrutiny",
	and that
	"any reference to agreement to a proposal includes . . . political agreement."
	It is possible for a Minister to give agreement in circumstances in which
	"he decides that for special reasons agreement should be given",
	but he has to explain those reasons
	"in every such case, to the European Scrutiny Committee at the first opportunity after reaching his decision".
	In accordance with the resolution of 17 November 1998, therefore, and because the European Scrutiny Committee has a duty to the House to ensure that the Standing Orders of the House are complied with, I ask you to consider my point of order and to ensure that the Prime Minister comes to the European Scrutiny Committee and explains himself.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The remarks made by the hon. Gentleman are not a point of order for the Chair, but Members on the Treasury Bench will no doubt have heard those remarks.
	 Order for Third Reading read.—[ Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Tom Harris: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I do not need to remind the House that this substantial Bill enables the construction of the Crossrail scheme—a scheme that will have an enormous effect on hundreds of thousands of people. As right hon. and hon. Members present know, the Bill was first introduced on 22 February 2005 and has been carried over and reintroduced a further three times since then.
	The Bill received its Second Reading in this place on 19 July 2005 and the Select Committee, so ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), commenced its work on 17 January 2006. Having sat for 21 months and heard some 200 petitions, the Select Committee published its special report on 23 October 2007. Once again, I place on record my sincere thanks to all the members of the Committee for their perseverance. I am sure right hon. and hon. Members will agree that the Bill is a better piece of legislation following the Committee's scrutiny.
	Rather more routinely, the Bill was then scrutinised by a Public Bill Committee which, after four good humoured and entertaining sittings, reported on Tuesday 27 November. On Third Reading, hon. Members will be asked to approve the Bill and, in so doing, approve the building of Crossrail. Before that question is put to them, I recognise that it is important that they are given a full understanding of the special considerations that apply in a case such as this, where the House is being asked to approve a project that will have significant environmental impacts. I fear that this involves a rather technical explanation, for which I apologise in advance.
	In this connection, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) raised with me specific concerns about the parliamentary procedures for the Bill, in the light of correspondence from a group calling themselves the coalition and their legal representatives. I can confirm that I and my officials have read the correspondence and taken advice. I am content that the procedure is compatible with the relevant EC obligations.
	The environmental impact assessment directive requires that decision-making bodies should give consent to development projects likely to have a significant effect on the environment only after assessment of those environmental effects has been carried out. To that end, the directive sets out a procedure to be followed that requires a proper assessment of the likely significant environmental impacts of a project, which is published in the environmental statement; proper consultation of interested parties, including the public, on the environmental statement; that the views of the consultees should be taken into account, and that the decision whether or not to consent to the development should be given publicly, with the reasons for the decision. The environmental statement for Crossrail was published in February 2005. It has since been supplemented by a number of additional volumes, reflecting changes to the project made during the parliamentary process or additional information that became available later. Responses to the consultation exercise on the environmental statement were published in Command Papers issued in July 2005 and last month. We also published a third Command Paper last month; it summarised the work done to assess, control and mitigate the environmental impacts of Crossrail and the reasons why the Government continue to take the view that the project is worthy of their support.
	I deposited a written statement before the House on 20 November to draw hon. Members' attention to those documents and to the obligations placed on this House, as the decision-making body for Crossrail, by the environmental impact assessment directive. I especially draw attention to appendix A of Cm. 7250. It summarises the Government's reasons for urging this House to endorse its proposals for Crossrail, notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental impacts of such a project, on which subject I shall say more in a moment.
	It is now for right hon. and hon. Members to decide, in the light of the information provided by the Government and the views expressed by interested parties, whether the project should be allowed to proceed, taking into account its environmental effects. When considering that question, right hon. and hon. Members will no doubt bear in mind the excellent work done by the Select Committee, which considered many environmental issues as part of the process. Indeed, the Select Committee process resulted in a number of changes to the project, many of which helped to reduce Crossrail's likely environmental impacts.
	However, the remit of the Committee did not permit it to consider all the environmental issues raised by petitioners. This House instructed the Committee to report separately on those further issues so that hon. Members could consider all views raised on the Crossrail project. The Committee issued its special report in October, and it included a chapter on environmental issues. Hon. Members will wish to consider whether any matters raised there, in the environmental statement, in the consultation responses or in any direct representations from their constituents lead them to conclude that the project should not be granted consent.
	For my part, I am satisfied that the Crossrail project is in the wider public interest. It is not possible to build a large public transport infrastructure project in a densely populated area without some adverse impacts on those living and working on or near the intended route. Those impacts will include noise and various adverse effects on the townscape, landscape, visual amenity, heritage, archaeology, traffic and transport, as well as on certain businesses and local communities. In the Government's view, those effects are outweighed by the benefits that Crossrail will bring—not just to the United Kingdom as a whole, but to the local communities that will benefit from improved transport connections.
	The Government do not take lightly the environmental impacts of the project and I draw hon. Members' attention to the complex package of controls, mitigation and compensation measures put in place to reduce and mitigate the potential adverse impacts. They include changes to the project, made during the Select Committee process, that reduce environmental impacts; Bill provisions requiring detailed consents and approvals from relevant bodies such as local planning authorities; and the obligations to be placed on the Crossrail-nominated undertaker in the environmental minimum requirements, including a range of undertakings and assurances addressing environmental concerns.
	On the plus side of the balance sheet, Crossrail has the potential to improve the lives of commuters as nothing has before. It will provide London and the south-east with a world-class railway, delivering high-capacity mainline rail services to and through the heart of the City and west end. It will provide a new fleet of trains, operating a 24 trains-an-hour peak service in both directions through central London, carrying some 200 million passengers a year. Crossrail has a strong economic case; the benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.8:1. We estimate that, in addition, Crossrail will generate cash benefits to the UK gross domestic product of at least £20 billion. Others have suggested that those benefits to the national economy could be substantially higher.
	It goes without saying that Crossrail will significantly increase the capacity of the rail network into and across London. It is expected to add 21 per cent. and 54 per cent. to rail capacity to the City and the Isle of Dogs respectively, thereby relieving congestion and overcrowding on the existing national rail and underground networks. It will support the development of London as a world city and in its role as the financial centre of Europe and the United Kingdom.
	The improved east-west rail access into and across London from the east and south-east regions will also support local and national Government policy for economic development and regeneration, particularly in the Lea valley and Thames Gateway, attracting some additional 80,000 jobs to regeneration areas.

Nick Raynsford: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Tom Harris: If my right hon. Friend will forgive me, I should like to continue.
	Those are the key benefits. I could, of course, say far more about the benefits of Crossrail and the potential adverse environmental impacts, but I think—I hope that the House will agree—that I have already spoken for quite long enough. I now urge right hon. and hon. Members to express their views on this matter. I hope that they will agree that the overall balance of benefits to disbenefits is such that this project deserves their wholehearted support. I commend the Bill to the House.

Stephen Hammond: I thank the Minister at the outset for his confirmation that he has had the opportunity to look at the legal advice sent to us by a group calling itself the coalition and its legal advisers and that after being able to make his speech without intervention he satisfies all legal requirements in that regard. I hope that that is helpful to the whole House.
	Today the Bill finishes one part of its lengthy procession through the House. It was first introduced in 2005 and received its Second Reading in July of that year. It was subject to the hybrid Bill procedures, with two Committee stages in both Houses, the Select Committee to hear petitions and then, more routinely, the Public Bill Committee. The Select Committee first sat in January 2006 and had more than 100 sittings— [ Interruption. ] I am underestimating that, according to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley), or perhaps it just felt like that.

Alan Meale: Considerably.

Stephen Hammond: The Chairman of the Select Committee uses the right word.
	Closing submissions to the Select Committee were made in July 2007, and to enable it to continue its work we had two carry-over motions on the Floor of the House. The Bill then wound its way through to the Public Bill Committee, where, as the Minister said, we had four good-humoured sittings. None the less, proper scrutiny was carried out. To ensure that, Her Majesty's Opposition tabled some 70 amendments and two new clauses. It is a source of considerable pride to Her Majesty's Opposition that the Minister found that he could support, if in a slightly differently worded way, at least one of our amendments, which found its way on to today's amendment paper. The Bill will now proceed to the other place and go through the same stages, although I am sure that Members there will be pleased to hear that it will not, as I understand it, be subject to a Select Committee procedure as lengthy as it was in this House. Nevertheless, today represents a significant step forward in Crossrail's development.

Eric Pickles: Even given its lengthy proceedings, the Committee always treated my constituents with freshness and great attentiveness. That contrasts strongly with Crossrail itself, which, even in dealing with a relatively small and trivial matter such as minimising the effects of parking during the construction, seemed very reluctant, according to my local council, to come to any definitive decisions. That is worrying. If it was prepared to do something as relatively trivial as that, it would ease people's minds as to whether it is an organisation that is as willing to listen as the Select Committee was.

Stephen Hammond: Of course, I am not here to answer for the undertakers of the Bill, or for the Secretary of State, but my hon. Friend's point is well made. I am sure that it will have been heard by the nominated undertakers. He makes the point, as has everyone in the House today, that the Select Committee has done an amazing job. We are all thankful for that, principally because we were not on the Committee.
	The Conservative party's position has been clear throughout the Bill's parliamentary stages. It was stated initially by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), and it has also been stated by the shadow Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers), and myself, on numerous occasions in this House and other places. We have always supported Crossrail in principle, but we needed to be certain of the funding, and we needed to be certain that the funding package was robust.
	On 5 October, the Government announced the funding package in what seemed some undue haste, before the Prime Minister changed his mind about a general election. It is most regrettable that during all of our scrutiny, we have not had the chance to discuss the funding package in any real depth, notwithstanding the Minister's generosity in putting at our disposal the heads of agreement between the Mayor and the Secretary of State. The Minister was also kind enough to brief myself and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer).
	However, we need to understand exactly the consequences of this package and its robustness. The Mayor of London intends to levy a supplementary rate of 2 per cent. on businesses throughout London, and there will be relief for small businesses. He will raise £3.5 billion, or more precisely he is going to raise £3.5 billion in debt. However, the supplementary level can take place only, and I quote from the heads of agreement, when
	"such consultation as may be required is undertaken".
	That touches on my point about our inability to scrutinise matters, for what is
	"such consultation as may be required"?
	Who is going to be consulted? Where will the results be accessible?
	There are large grants from the Department for Transport and Transport for London, which come to close to £8 billion. If any rational decision is to be taken, one needs to be able to scrutinise those grants. There are also very large contributions in the funding package from developers and sums raised from the sale of land. Again, it would be helpful if we were able to scrutinise the robustness of the whole package.
	I say to the Minister that Crossrail has our support, and it will continue to have it. However, we questioned the financing previously. We questioned it at the time of the referral to the Lyons inquiry and that whole debacle; during consideration of the carry-over motion; and, where we could do so in some minor, ingenious way, in Committee. I have questioned it again this afternoon by attempting to introduce a new clause. We will continue to question the package to ensure its robustness.
	The Minister will also know—we alluded to this earlier—that we raised the question of the right to consultation several times in Committee. Notwithstanding the legal questions raised by the coalition, and the Minister's reassuring answer, I have been approached latterly by representatives of Smithfield market tenants. That process reflects something that we discussed in Committee, which is the right to compensation. That right has been confirmed, but people are concerned that there has been no further discussion about the sums that may be granted. Those making representations to the Committee were assured that they would be compensated for the costs of going before the Committee and of making submissions. Again, there has been no further discussion with the people who made those petitions about the substance of that compensation. It would be helpful if the Minister—either in his closing remarks or by some other method—made clear the Government's intent on those two points. None the less, Crossrail is important to London and what benefits London will benefit the United Kingdom.
	I have already mentioned the commitment and hard work of the Select Committee and of other hon. Members. I note that the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) is in his place. During the Bill's passage, we have had the chance to consider what would be included on the Crossrail route and, at times, to make sensible decisions for the greater value and benefit of the scheme. That was highlighted in our debates about Woolwich station. They led to the Government changing their position and allowing a Select Committee to consider the matter, and to an innovative funding solution. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will confirm my comments in his speech, but I believe that Woolwich station will make a valid contribution to the regenerative effect of Crossrail on the Thames Gateway. It is to the credit of our parliamentary procedures that we were able to achieve what we did.

Philip Hollobone: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the Select Committee's success in persuading the Government to change their mind on Woolwich. However, another early victory occurred when the Committee put its foot down about the ticket hall arrangements at Liverpool Street station. The Government have agreed that the largest proposals for a ticket hall should be incorporated in the scheme. The Select Committee has prevented chaos at that station by advancing its cause.

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend is right. I know that he was a valued member of the Select Committee.
	Crossrail is essential for London and the United Kingdom. It will enable London to remain a truly international, world city and the global leader in financial services. One can take economic estimates how one likes, but it is estimated that GDP could benefit by some £30 billion, of which £12 billion will go directly to the Treasury in tax receipts. I am sure that that is another reason for the Government's support for the Bill. I have no doubt that Crossrail will significantly benefit the United Kingdom. Conservative Members wish the Bill a swift passage through the other place and beyond, so that the first sod can be cut.

Nick Raynsford: I shall be brief, but I do not want the moment to pass without congratulating my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport on his success in bringing this important, long and complex Bill to the point at which it should receive a Third Reading today and then pass on to the other place and complete its parliamentary passage.
	The Bill is important and should bring substantial benefits to London. Without it, London's economic growth—and, indeed, its transport policy—would face serious questions. Without Crossrail, the outlook for London's transport in 20 years would be much more challenging, with serious transport and environmental consequences. When we consider environmental issues, we should be aware that without Crossrail, London's future could be bleak, with serious traffic congestion and the consequent environmental degradation. We should be conscious of that wider environmental context when considering the short-term adverse impacts during the construction phase.
	I am conscious of that in my constituency, especially in Woolwich, which has probably suffered more than most London boroughs in the past 20 to 30 years from economic decline and deindustrialisation. The result has been relatively high poverty and deprivation and a need for new investment. It is noticeable that the works currently taking place to bring the docklands light railway into Woolwich have provoked few complaints or criticisms. I have received only a small number, despite the huge disruption that that major engineering work is causing the area. The reason is simple: the work is bringing enormous benefits to a deprived area, which will benefit from communication across the Thames through the docklands light railway to London City airport and beyond. That will be a helpful economic driver.
	By contrast, Crossrail will be an enormous benefit because the fast connection to Canary Wharf, central London and through to Heathrow will make possible investment that was previously thought impossible in Woolwich. That is why there was such enormous feeling in Woolwich across all sections of the community—the business community, the local population and all others, including our neighbours in surrounding areas—about the importance of the Crossrail station, which was one of the great achievements of the Select Committee. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and his colleagues on the Committee for recognising the importance of the Crossrail station at Woolwich and insisting that it be incorporated in the Bill.
	I pay tribute, too, to my hon. Friend the Minister on the Government's acceptance of the case and on their recognition that, through an innovative funding regime involving a private sector contribution to the station at Woolwich, it was possible to amend the Bill in a way compatible with the economic objective of delivering the entire Crossrail project cost-effectively. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) has referred to the innovative financing of the scheme and to the contribution that it will make to the Thames Gateway. We should all be pleased about what has been achieved on the financing, which will help to ensure the greater success of the Crossrail project and its contribution to the Thames Gateway in general, and to Woolwich in particular.

Susan Kramer: I am conscious of the time, and will endeavour to make my comments brief. Like others who served on the Public Bill Committee, I am in awe of hon. Members who spent nearly two years on the Select Committee. I pay direct tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), who sat on that Committee for the Liberal Democrats and, I believe, even volunteered for it. That must surely buy him a lot of freedom from purgatory. The Bill now heads on to the other place, where there is significant expertise. I understand that a number of Members in the other place will relish the hybrid stage, so perhaps there is much more to happen to the Bill.
	We as a party have long supported Crossrail. We would have loved it to go to Reading in the west and to Stansted in the east, but the project has at least made its beginnings, and will be crucial to ensuring that London continues its economic vibrancy.
	I should like to make some brief comments under three headings. Funding remains a significant concern to us. Transparency is important, not just to allow general discussion, but because it brings a discipline to a project. One only has to consider the experiences of the public-private partnership and Metronet to see how much that kind of discipline is needed. As the Bill—and, I hope, the project—proceed, we would like some clarity about the sources of funds and how they will be used and applied.
	The innovative financing, in the form of a levy on business, fits the direction of travel that we have often considered for infrastructure projects. We would have preferred something targeted much more on the direct beneficiaries, as it were, of the economic bounce that will come from the project. The levy being used in this case is a rather blunt instrument, but the general direction of travel is crucial, and should provide an example of how large infrastructure projects could be structured in future.
	However, one issue that remains important to us has not been discussed today. We would consider including a sizeable contingency in the £16 billion project being presented. On behalf of London fare payers and London businesses, we must press the Government to ensure that if there is an underspend, the clawback and savings will be returned, first to London fare payers and then to the London business community.
	I have two quick comments to make on the impact of the project. We understand that the issue of freight will return at the hybrid stage, but I want to underscore its significance now. London needs a number of projects. Because of long delays in decision making, they are now beginning to move together, and that process must be managed.
	Finally, I want to raise the issue of blight, which goes beyond this project but is also inherently part of it. The opportunity has been missed to present a new mechanism for dealing with the blight of major infrastructure projects. I would recommend to the Minister that, as he talks to his colleagues in the Department for Transport, he take a look at BAA's property market bond scheme. I really recommend BAA as an exemplar in this regard. The scheme provides a mechanism for widely reducing blight impact, rather than simply in the narrow sense in which compensation is provided under Government legislation.
	I have been conscious throughout the passage of the Bill that we have to get it right. It seems that every project that comes up steps up to the plate and becomes a template for the next project, and we see constant references back. The work that has been done to try to improve this legislation should have long-term consequences not only for this project but for the many rail projects that I hope we shall see in future, as Crossrail usurps the channel tunnel rail link as the touchstone project for the next phase of construction.
	It has been noted that £16 billion is a very large sum of money, but the value and benefit of Crossrail to the London economy—and, therefore, to the UK economy—is crucial. I am delighted to have been part of a process that I hope will move the project into something close to its final stage.

Peter Soulsby: As one of those who did two years of penal servitude on the Select Committee on the Bill, I could speak at considerable length now that I am free. Some of us had become so institutionalised by the end of that process that we actually volunteered to go back inside and serve on the Public Bill Committee. None the less, I shall try to keep my remarks brief and simply make some fairly sharp points.
	The Minister has talked about the enormous benefits to the economy that Crossrail is likely to bring. He mentioned a figure of about £20 billion; the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) spoke of about £30 billion. Who knows what it will be? We do know that it will be very substantial indeed. Crossrail is a major infrastructure project, of vital importance not only to the capital but to the national economy. It is very much to be welcomed. Obviously, a lot of regeneration could result from it, and many jobs will be created during its construction. It will provide a vital east-west link across the capital, without which the existing transport infrastructure would run the real risk of clogging up to the point of coming to a standstill.
	The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) referred to one of the remaining issues as the Bill leaves this House and goes on to the other place. That was freight, and she was quite right to draw attention to it. Freight was one of the issues to which the Select Committee drew specific attention in its report. We said that we expected there to be continuing discussions about the impact of Crossrail on freight, both east and west of the capital, and we hoped that it would be given further consideration. I know that the Department has given it further consideration and is working on possible solutions, as is the industry more widely, so that when the Bill is debated in the other place, sufficient reassurance can be given that the vital interests of freight will be protected as Crossrail comes into operation.
	Other hon. Members have mentioned some of the continuing concerns expressed by those who have petitioned against the Bill. The Smithfield market traders were specifically mentioned; I know that other members of the Select Committee will have received letters from them and from others about their lingering concerns about the impact of the scheme on their interests. It is worth reassuring those people again that they will have the opportunity to petition against the Bill in the other place, should they wish to do so. They will have the opportunity to be heard in the other place, if they feel that their interests have not been adequately protected by this House. Similar procedures will be followed as the hybrid Bill goes through its various stages.
	It is worth saying, by way of a brief digression, that the Select Committee did not consider the overall merits of the scheme. The Bill comes to the hybrid Bill Committee as something that, having been given its Second Reading, has already been approved in principle by the House. We were aware of that in Committee, but not all the petitioners were aware of it. There is no doubt that some who wanted to petition against aspects of the principle of the Bill or alternative routes or the potential to go further out to East Anglia, to Reading or beyond found it somewhat frustrating that that was not within our remit.
	It is worth putting on record the fact that one aspect of the hybrid Bill procedure—there are many great strengths to it—is not in place now and might be worth considering before the House deals with the next hybrid Bill. The procedure might be strengthened if hybrid Bill Committees had the same facility as Public Bill Committees now have—to hear initial evidence in order to set the context for later consideration. That, or perhaps further consideration of evidence in advance by the departmental Select Committee, might have enabled any frustrations to be dealt with at an earlier stage. That might also have enabled the hybrid Bill Committee to have looked at the outset at some of the more general issues that we had to return to on a number of occasions during our hearings—for example, ground-borne noise or the compensation code, which we had to learn about rapidly. Those matters could have been dealt with initially by hearings with expert advice, which might have allowed us to deal even more expeditiously with the petitions in front of us.

Philip Hollobone: rose—

Peter Soulsby: I will give way briefly, but only once, because other hon. Members are waiting to speak.

Philip Hollobone: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the limitations of the hybrid Bill procedure. Members of the Committee felt a lot of frustration because they could not look into alternative scenarios at either end of the route. Being able to do that would not have been disruptive to the hybrid Bill procedure. I would like to support the hon. Gentleman in his view that if another hybrid Bill comes along, revisions to the procedure could be made to enable the Committee to add further value to its deliberations.

Peter Soulsby: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. It is clear that the frustration was shared by other members of the Committee. I wonder whether the Modernisation Committee might like to look further into the hybrid Bill procedure—quite an unusual procedure for Parliament, but one that can be of very considerable significance when it crops up.
	Let me pick out two of the most significant changes that the hybrid Bill Committee was able to make. The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) has already referred to one of them—the significant improvements to the Liverpool Street station plans. We rapidly concluded that what was being proposed was not workable. I believe that what was ultimately put forward—I recall that we learned a lot about Pedroute and various other ways of looking at such schemes—meets the needs of the City of London Corporation, which petitioned, British Land and others. The arrival of Crossrail will enable that station to improve even beyond its current situation.
	The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) referred to the second substantial change—the inclusion of a station at Woolwich. We were absolutely convinced that the costs were enormously outweighed by the benefits, particularly the regeneration of the area. I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend—ably supported by his parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) who made an equally strong case—for pressing so strongly for this station. I also pay tribute, as have others, to the Minister and his Department for the responsive way in which they dealt with this issue and the constructive way in which they set about finding a funding package to enable this enormously worthwhile station to be built at Woolwich.
	To conclude, when many of us were appointed to the Select Committee almost exactly two years ago, we felt that we might have been appointed to the parliamentary equivalent of breaking rocks. In fact, I am delighted that we were proved wrong about that, as it turned out to be very worthwhile. I am delighted that we have produced a scheme that will be of enormous benefit to London. It is not, of course, just for London; it will be a vital piece of national infrastructure, which will undoubtedly make a significant contribution to the economy.
	As I said earlier, I think that the Bill has been very well scrutinised by the House, and very constructively amended by the Government. I hope that it will now be approved by the House, and will permit the construction of what will unquestionably be an exciting and vital public transport link. I trust that it will proceed to the other place, perhaps to be still further improved but certainly to produce, at the end of the day, a very worthwhile project.

Brian Binley: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby), who has proved to be a wise and experienced counsellor on matters of this kind. I am sure that his local government experience created that ability. I also pay tribute to the Chairman of the hybrid Bill Committee, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), who led us with humour, gentleness and kindness, and managed to keep our interest going when most of us were flagging. His work ought to be recognised, and tribute should be paid to it.
	Sadly, I cannot share the confidence and enthusiasm expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), for I have sizeable doubts. In my defence, I will add only that I had those doubts before the scheme began, and the work that I did in Committee did not change that; indeed, it rather strengthened my doubts, which relate to three specific issues. I am concerned about what I consider to be the poor costing regime used for the project to date, and referred to numerous times both in Committee and in the Bill; I fear that Crossrail will remove the focus from vital projects in other parts of the United Kingdom; and I am shocked at the lack of any attempt to put a cost on the blight and disruption that has been caused to London so far. Yet here we are, making a final decision.
	All those matters have a direct impact on the end cost of the Bill and the economic return of the scheme. It strikes me as disturbing that we should make decisions in that financial environment, and I think that the next hybrid Bill should make it possible for us to consider those matters as well. That we have not been able to do so on this occasion seems to me to be a major oversight. I realise that it could have been slightly embarrassing for the Government, but preventing embarrassment for the Government is not the purpose of a hybrid Bill or indeed of this place. I should like my opinion to be recorded, and to be considered for the future.
	The poor cost accounting for the project became obvious to me as the hybrid Committee's deliberations continued, in two contexts. The first was floating track. More and more of it was demanded by petitioners and promised during our consideration, but the figures given for the amount of floating track and the increased cost that it would entail were extremely vague. I think it unacceptable that the House should make a final decision without an understanding of the true impact of those factors.
	My real concern, however, relates to Woolwich station. If the project goes ahead, that station is vital. As was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), the need for regeneration in the area is equally vital. The first estimate of the cost of a station was £350 million. I gained the impression that the cost had been pitched very high because the promoters did not want the station. As we whittled away at the problem, however, the estimated cost fell to £200 million. By 31 October it was £186 million, and the final cost turned out to be about £172 million. If that is an example of the costing used for this project, I despair. It does not give me much confidence.
	As for my fear that the focus will be removed from other projects, the  Financial Times has already made the point that Crossrail covers roughly the distance between Leeds and Manchester but a northern Crossrail has not been considered, although it could have a tremendous impact on the whole economy of the north, an area on which the Government say they wish to make an impact. Many people would say that such a project could be implemented at a considerably lower cost than Crossrail. There are many other examples. The truth is that London has attracted many major infrastructure projects, and the rest of the country is deeply concerned about how much resource and finance will be left for their own particular projects and concerns.
	Let me turn to the important matter of the final costings. Many Government schemes lead taxpayers to despair: the initial price is very acceptable, and we make the decision on the basis of that acceptable price, and we then find to our horror that the final cost has doubled or trebled—and sometimes it is four times as great as the initial estimate. I do not wish to embarrass the Government too much.

Kelvin Hopkins: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept the following about the days of British Rail: it worked under tight cash limits and did the best job possible within a fixed sum, and that was on the basis of public borrowing, which was very cheap?

Brian Binley: I accept that, but I note that the economic return of almost every British Rail project was non-existent, and I am particularly concerned about that in terms of Crossrail. I will address that shortly.
	We in Northampton are immensely concerned because we are seeking infrastructure to support what we consider to be a sizeable dumping of houses on our county, and we are not getting it.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are on Third Reading of the Crossrail Bill.

Brian Binley: I understand that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am trying to make the point that the rest of the country is concerned about this project, and rightly so.
	My final point is on the costing of Crossrail. I have made the point about the rise in the cost of the Olympics from £1.8 billion to about £9.3 billion. In 2002, it was estimated that Crossrail would cost about £10 billion. That rose last year to some £16 billion. It is estimated that the cost of Crossrail will increase by £1.5 billion a year for the next— [Interruption.] I will not refrain from saying this, if Madam Deputy Speaker allows me to say it. It is estimated that the cost of Crossrail will increase by £1.5 billion a year, to about £22 billion by the time the thing starts. I will bet any Member in the Chamber that that figure will end up at between £30 billion and £35 billion. If that is the case, I wonder whether the economic return will be as the Minister and the Government say it will be.
	I have serious concerns about the project—as, I believe, do many people in the rest of the country. Would I as a businessman invest, on the basis of the evidence we have been given? Certainly not, because I believe there would be a real risk of my business going bust. Yet that is exactly what the taxpayer is being forced to do. As an MP, should I vote for such a project on such a basis? I personally believe not. I know that it is too late for the Government to change their mind, but I want to put it on record that I believe that this will turn out to be an immensely costly exercise for both London and the rest of the country, and that the economic return will be nowhere near that which the Government project.

Mike Gapes: I will be very brief. The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) referred to blight and destruction to London in the construction of Crossrail. There will be even more blight and destruction to London—particularly in respect of the jobs of Londoners and the congestion and pollution caused by inadequate rail services—if Crossrail is not built. It will bring an increase in capacity of more than 40 per cent. of the additional rail capacity that London needs.
	The hon. Gentleman also referred to the costs. His figures are based on different financial years, and the reality is that under Doug Oakervee and Cross London Rail Links Ltd there has been a significant reduction in some of the costs, in particular by getting rid of the Romford depot at one end and by redesigning the project in many ways, such as to reduce the amount of spillage from Hanbury street in Tower Hamlets. It is not true that the costs have been escalating. In fact, they have been tightly controlled, which is why we have managed to get this package agreed, with contributions from London business—which will benefit enormously from Crossrail—from the Government and also, inevitably, from the fares.

Brian Binley: rose—

Mike Gapes: I do not have time to give way. The hon. Gentleman spoke for a long time, and some of my colleagues also wish to speak.
	As the chairman of the all-party group on Crossrail, I am delighted that at last, after 15 years in this House, I see a Government who are bringing about a situation where we can vote for the Third Reading of this Bill and send it on its way to the other place. We will be able to start the construction of Crossrail at the end of this decade, and by 2017, my constituents in Goodmayes, Ilford, Seven Kings and Chadwell Heath will be able to get on Crossrail trains from extended platforms in redesigned stations and go across to Heathrow. They will be able to cut their journey times across central London by a third. The whole of east London will benefit from regeneration as a result of these proposals, and therefore I am delighted to give my support to the Bill.

Theresa May: First, may I pay tribute and give thanks to all hon. Members who served on the Committees for this Bill, particularly those who undertook what the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) described as the "penal servitude" of the hybrid Bill Committee. Their careful attention to the issues raised by petitioners from my constituency, of whom I was one, led to improvements to the Bill for my constituency, particularly for residents living close to Guards Club park. They have also brought about improvements in relation to works around Maidenhead station and they have reduced the impact—sadly, there will still be an impact—on Brunel's famous Maidenhead railway bridge, which was so wonderfully captured by J. M. W. Turner.
	I want to raise three points about the Bill, the first of which is about the hybrid Bill Committee. As the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) made clear, the hybrid Bill Committee was not allowed to consider the extension of the route. I believe that that directly contravened undertakings given in this Chamber by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was the then Transport Secretary. I am concerned that the Committee was not able to consider the extension of the route, because the overall route is an important aspect of Crossrail.
	That brings me to my second point. Many hon. Members have referred to the economic benefit of Crossrail. Crossrail will have a great economic benefit, but we will miss out on even more economic benefit if it is not extended to Reading in the west. If one looks at this in a strategic transport sense, it makes sense to extend the line to a transport hub, which Reading clearly is. I know that that view is shared by the two Members of Parliament who represent Reading, and it is certainly shared by Wokingham borough council, Reading borough council and the Thames Valley economic partnership, which represents large-scale businesses in the Thames Valley area. The Government are missing out on something, because the scheme could be even better if it were extended to Reading.
	My third point is about the potential impact of Crossrail on services on the First Great Western line, to which I referred on Report. The Minister knows my concern that if Crossrail comes and the First Great Western service is not continued as it is today, my constituents in Maidenhead could find themselves not as the recipients of a fast service and semi-fast services into Paddington, as they are today, but simply on the end of a metro service. The time taken to get to Paddington from Maidenhead would thus double from 20 minutes to 40 minutes. Crossrail could benefit my constituents in Maidenhead enormously if they could board a fast service to Paddington and stay on across London to Canary Wharf and elsewhere.
	Sadly, that benefit will not be provided as the services are envisaged. My concern is that unless the Government are willing to accept, when the time comes, that the service specification for the franchise for First Great Western should not be reduced, given that Crossrail will serve Maidenhead, my constituents will find this of disbenefit, rather than of benefit. That would be even more the case for my constituents in Twyford, which is between Maidenhead and Reading, because if the Crossrail line does not extend from Maidenhead to Reading, they would find themselves with a significantly reduced service and really lose out as a result of Crossrail. Crossrail could be so much more of a benefit to the UK, to the south-east and to my constituents if the Government examined carefully the service provision on First Great Western when Crossrail comes and looked at the issue of extending it to Reading.

Clive Efford: The arguments on Crossrail have been well rehearsed in several previous debates, so I shall be brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and all the members of the Committee on the way in which they went about their business. There was a strong argument from people in south-east London, ably led by my neighbour and right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), in favour of the station at Woolwich, making that town centre a major hub for the wider south-east London area around Greenwich and Bexley.
	The Select Committee demonstrated the House at its best by listening to the arguments not only from hon. Members but from others who made representations on behalf of that station. They forced the Government to think again and were successful in achieving the inclusion of a Crossrail station at Woolwich in the scheme. That is very welcome.
	I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the way in which he has conducted himself throughout the discussions, because he has shown a willingness to listen and an ability to articulate the difficult position that the Government were in on occasion. We have a satisfactory conclusion at the end of the day.
	Crossrail is essential for the status of London as a world city. It will contribute 40 per cent. of the necessary increase in transport capacity that London needs if it is to continue to grow and contribute to the British economy. For those who are concerned by so much investment going into London, it is important to remember that London is a net exporter of money to the greater economy of the UK. In the Mayor's submission to the spending review in 2004—"The Case for London"—he highlighted the fact that London exports more than £9 billion to other areas of the UK when public expenditure is calculated against taxes paid. The Corporation of London commissioned Oxford Economic Forecasting to put the case for London, and it highlighted the fact that the capital city imports £110 billion-worth of goods and services from other parts of the country, making London a net importer of resources, a world-class city and the driving force in the UK economy. London also has a catalytic effect on tourism, and financial and business services that benefit the wider country.
	The case has been well made for Crossrail. It is essential not only for London, but for the UK's wider economy, and the Government and the Select Committee have done an excellent job on behalf of us all. I hope that the Bill gets a fair wind in the other place and we see Crossrail constructed on time and to budget. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said, I hope that my constituents will be able to catch a train at Woolwich and go all the way to Heathrow, non-stop. That will be very welcome for people from south-east London and we all look forward to that day.

Alan Meale: In the few minutes that remain, it would be remiss of me, as Chairman of the Select Committee, if I did not pay due tribute to the staff of the House who worked alongside us. The Clerks worked diligently on the Bill. I also pay particular thanks to the Chairman of the Catering Committee—a very important and powerful person—because he helped the Committee by making staff available to provide refreshments to members of the Committee, and also the promoters and petitioners on the Bill. The staff provided refreshments through the months and years that the Committee sat. We are grateful to the cleaners, the Clerks, the police and the security staff, who all allowed us to do our job.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Housing Act

Ordered,
	That the Housing Act 2004 (Commencement No. 10) (England and Wales) Order 2007 (S.I., 2007, No. 3308), dated 23 November 2007, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.— [Alison Seabeck.]

PETITION

Post Office Closures (New Forest)

Julian Lewis: I rise to present a petition on the astonishing proposal to close the post office at Bramshaw in the New Forest, which has plunged village residents into despair. Bramshaw's bus services have been discontinued, and many vulnerable, elderly people will be isolated and put at risk on long walks to Cadnam along a busy road with no footpaths. A former bomb disposal officer with a George medal states that closing Bramshaw post office is tearing the heart out of the social life of the village. He is 93 years old. Society should be ashamed.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of Mr. Desmond Swayne MP and 366 other customers of Bramshaw Post Office in the New Forest,
	Declares that the loss of this Post Office will have a devastating effect on the welfare of numerous vulnerable and elderly residents of the village.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government and Post Office Ltd. to reverse the proposal to close this indispensable branch.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000086]

THE AKHTAR FAMILY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Liz Blackman.]

Paul Rowen: I thank the House and Mr. Speaker for granting me this Adjournment debate. I shall talk briefly about the operation of the UK-Pakistan protocol, but specifically about how it has affected Asma Akhtar and her four children. You will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the case is currently before the family division of the UK High Court, although I have the permission of Mr. Justice Ryder to raise the issue in the House.
	The UK-Pakistan protocol on children's matters is an agreement signed in 2003 between the president of the family division and the honourable chief justice of Pakistan. It aims to
	"protect the children of the UK and Pakistan from the harmful effects of wrongful removal or retention from one country to the other".
	Article 1 states:
	"In normal circumstances the welfare of a child is best determined by the courts of the country of the child's habitual/ordinary residence."
	Article 2 continues:
	"If a child is removed from the UK to Pakistan...without the consent of the parent...the judge of the court of the country to which the child has been removed shall not ordinarily exercise jurisdiction over the child, save in so far as it is necessary for the court to order the return of the child to the country of the child's...ordinary residence."
	Article 7 requires that
	"the respective governments of the UK and Pakistan give urgent consideration to identifying or establishing an administrative service to facilitate or oversee the resolution of child abduction cases".
	That is an important point, to which I shall return later.
	In reply to a written question that I tabled, the Minister wrote:
	"Since its inception in 2003, 84 cases have been brought under the Protocol. Of these, 49 involved actual abduction or wrongful retention of a child by a parent. 19 of these cases involved court proceedings being initiated in Pakistan and 22 cases resulted in returns from Pakistan to the UK."—[ Official Report, 20 November 2007; Vol. 467, c. 742W.]
	I understand that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had planned to hold a conference on the operation of the protocol in February of next year in Islamabad, although that that has been delayed because of the state of emergency in Pakistan.
	I turn now to the case of Asma Akhtar and her four young children. At the outset, I should explain that she is not my constituent, although she was born in Rochdale. She lives in Banbury, and I have the permission of the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) to deal with the case. Notwithstanding that, both her mother and sister live in Rochdale, and they were the ones who initially approached me for support.
	On 6 April, Asma, her four children aged between two and eight, and her husband Zahoor travelled to Pakistan via Dubai for a family holiday. All are UK nationals.
	 It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn .—[Liz Blackman.]

Paul Rowen: The family was due to return to the UK on 26 April, having confirmed return airline tickets. Just before the return flight, Asma's father claimed that he was not well, and the visit was extended by 15 days, by agreement. Her husband then tried to extend the visit further. Asma refused, as she wanted to get the three oldest children back to school. She was also studying for an Open university degree, which she was due to complete this summer.
	Asma then asked her husband to return her passport and her children's so that she could return to the UK. He refused, saying that neither she nor the children would be allowed to return to the UK. Asma then escaped from her brother-in-law's house in Rawalpindi, where she was being held, and sought the assistance of the British high commission in Islamabad.
	The high commission organised a meeting between the two parties at the high commission on 22 May. At the meeting, Zahoor agreed that the whole family would return to the UK to settle the question of the children's custody. Flights were booked for 26 May and, in the meantime, Asma and the children were to stay at a women's hostel.
	Before the meeting at the high commission, Zahoor was asked to bring the passports to the high commission. He did not do so. He said he would bring them to the high commission on Friday 25 May. He did not do that either, and nor did he answer calls from high commission staff. On Tuesday 25 May, the high commission found out that Zahoor had applied for court orders preventing his wife from taking the children out of Pakistan. Asma's mother Nasreen then approached me and asked for my assistance.
	Having got confirmation from the high commission about what had happened, I advised Asma to return to the UK to commence court proceedings here. That is what she did, with her mother flying to Pakistan to help look after the children. On 9 July, a court order was granted by Mrs. Justice Hogg that made the children wards of court. It stated that
	"said wards be brought to the jurisdiction of England and Wales no later than 27th July",
	and it also invoked
	"the Protocol made on 17th January 2003...so that all judicial, administrative and law enforcement authorities of...Pakistan help in locating, safeguarding and facilitating the return to England and Wales"
	of the children.
	The court order was conveyed to the judge in Pakistan by Asma's solicitors. Further court orders were laid before the High Court on 27 and 30 July, 14, 20 and 26 August, 14 September, 11 October and 14 November. However, none of them received a response from the husband.
	Since then, Asma has been forced to remain in Pakistan because she is not prepared to abandon the children. Despite numerous requests, the High Court in Pakistan has refused to respond to the invocation of the protocol, regarding it as a non-binding "memorandum of understanding". Although the courts in Pakistan have granted Asma custody, and even though Zahoor has to pay maintenance there, they have refused to lift the exit control orders.
	Asma is a young woman in a foreign country, with no available family support. I have had experience of dealing with many families of Pakistani origin, and I know that that is highly unusual. She is very much on her own. Zahoor and his family have made death threats against her, as the following extract from a letter to the British high commissioner, dated 24 August, shows. She said:
	"I am a woman fighting for the right of my children without any financial or emotional support...I am deeply concerned for the psychological trauma that has been inflicted upon my children...I have received numerous threats from my husband and his family. I have been told I will not leave Pakistan alive and that he will take my children from me."
	She is very much a woman alone.
	I make no criticism of the support provided by the high commission. Asma was helped to get a place at the hospital and to find a solicitor. I realise that the commission deals with many similar cases and the staff are overworked; nevertheless Asma and her children have been stranded in Pakistan for seven months.
	What can the Minister and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office do? The High Court order of 30 July is particularly important in that context. It requests:
	"The UK Passport Agency and the Consulate in Islamabad do communicate in order to reissue passports for the wards...for the purpose of their re-entry into England and Wales."
	The UK Passport Service has not responded to the substance of the order made by Mr. Justice Moylan. However, yesterday I met Mr. Justice Ryder, who today issued an order asking the service to respond to that request.
	Since August, I have been asking the high commission to issue new passports. Once that has been done, Asma will have a powerful bargaining tool to challenge the exit control orders. I have discussed the case with the Pakistan high commissioner and deputy high commissioner. In an e-mail to me of 7 November, the deputy high commissioner confirmed:
	"Their current British passports are with their father who refuses to give them back. Can you kindly press the High Commission in Islamabad to issue passports."
	The Minister will be aware of the strained relations between the courts and Government of Pakistan. It is clear to me that the Pakistan Government can be persuaded to allow Asma and the children to return to the UK. If the Minister agrees to issue the passports, it will put pressure on the Pakistan High Court to respond to the protocol, and send a clear signal that the UK Government are backing Asma in her fight to get her children back to the UK. If the Minister is prepared to do that, I will travel to Pakistan to negotiate their safe return. Can he think of a better Christmas or Eid present for Asma and her family?
	For the long term, the Government should begin talks with the Pakistan Government, as envisaged by article 7 of the protocol. Agreed administrative machinery could remove the frustrations and distress caused by the delaying tactics used in this case. The protocol was an important first step forward by the courts—an imaginative response from Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss. We need the Government to give the protocol some teeth, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Kim Howells: I thank the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) for securing a debate on the UK-Pakistan protocol on children's matters, and in particular on the case of Asma Akhtar. We are very much aware of Mrs. Akhtar's circumstances and I welcome the opportunity to set out clearly the position of Her Majesty's Government in relation to that case. I thank the hon. Gentleman for so clearly setting out the difficulty and complexity of the case.
	As the hon. Gentleman told us, international parental child abduction is not a new issue, nor, unfortunately, is it uncommon. As more people live and work overseas, so there will be more families with parents from different countries. Sometimes relationships break down and decisions have to be taken about where a child will live. In some cases, parents cannot agree and one parent decides to move the child to another country without the permission of the other. In this case, there are four children, and the circumstances are pretty exceptional.
	Where parents cannot agree, and cannot reach a mediated solution, custody is a matter for the courts. However, it is a serious and distressing issue, particularly when there is an international dimension. We cannot interfere, or take sides, but the Government are committed to helping where we can. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has spoken about the matter with Mr. Justice Ryder of the family division of the High Court. It is important that the hon. Gentleman gets guidance from Mr. Justice Ryder.
	To provide a focal point for our work, in 2003 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office set up a dedicated child abduction section within the consular directorate. The section provides advice and support to parents affected by child abduction. For many years, countries have looked for ways to resolve disputes in the best interests of the children. The 1980 Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction is an international convention under which legal procedures are agreed between a number of countries, including the United Kingdom, to assist in the return of a child who has been abducted.
	The hon. Gentleman did not have time to remind us, but The Hague convention does not work for all countries. For example, there are aspects of Islamic or sharia law, as practised in some countries, that can conflict with the principles of the convention. The convention argues that the country of habitual residence should be the deciding factor in determining where custody issues should be resolved. As he reminded us, the children are British. They were taken to Pakistan on holiday and they and their mother now find themselves more or less incarcerated in the country. Sharia law does not always support the notions enshrined in The Hague convention and so in many countries it can be very difficult for parents to have their children returned to their normal place of residence.
	Pakistan is such a country. It is also the country to which most abducted British children are taken by a parent—accounting for almost a fifth of our total case records. The United Kingdom-Pakistan protocol, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, was signed in 2003 following an initiative by Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, who was then president of the family division of the royal courts of justice, and senior judges. The aim was to provide a mechanism for communication between judiciaries to handle child abduction cases between our two countries better.
	The judicial initiative reflected the fact that although Pakistan, a country practising Islamic sharia family law, was unlikely in the near future to sign The Hague convention of 1980 on international child abduction, our countries shared many legal principles. They shared a desire to see child abduction cases handled in the best interests of the children. The protocol is a judicial consensus and, as the hon. Gentleman said, is not legally binding. However, in legal systems that draw heavily on precedent, it was clear that further establishing the principle of habitual residence as a strong assumption in child abduction cases would be very helpful. Judicial co-operation on this level is also important in trying to foster international co-operation between judiciaries.
	The protocol aims to secure the return of abducted children to the country where they normally live, without regard to the nationality, culture or religion of the parents, so that matters of custody and access can be resolved by the courts there. The protocol, which Her Majesty's Government fully support, has made a difference. According to the most recent records, 84 cases have been handled under the protocol. Of these, a total of 49 involved actual abduction or wrongful retention of a child by a parent. Some 22 cases resulted in returns from Pakistan to the United Kingdom.
	As well as offering the advice and support provided by the child abduction section in London, our consular staff based overseas are committed to supporting British nationals. That includes giving all the support that we properly can to those who have had their children abducted overseas, or are involved in custody disputes. We provide a list of overseas lawyers who speak English, conduct welfare checks on children—provided, of course, that the other parent agrees—offer travel information, and help with finding accommodation locally. Where appropriate, we contact the courts overseas to express our interest in a case and ask about progress. In exceptional circumstances we also attend court hearings. However, we can only operate within the confines of the law and cannot interfere in foreign court proceedings, just as other countries cannot interfere in our judicial system.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke about the case of Mrs. Akhtar and her four children, all of whom are in Pakistan. Our consular staff at the British high commission in Islamabad became aware of the case when Mrs. Akhtar's family in the UK contacted the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Consular staff have been in regular, frequent contact with Mrs. Akhtar since 1 May 2007 to offer and provide advice and assistance. That has included accompanying Mrs. Akhtar during a court hearing. Consular officials in London have also been in contact with Mrs. Akhtar's family in the United Kingdom.
	Mrs. Akhtar has asked us to issue new passports for her children, because her husband has effectively taken the passports away, and refuses to give them back to the children.  [Official Report, 7 January 2008, Vol. 470, c. 1MC.] We have not issued new passports because Mrs. Akhtar has started court proceedings in Pakistan under the protocol, seeking the return of the children to the United Kingdom. Under the terms of the protocol, we must await the outcome of the proceedings before issuing passports. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman told us, a lot of time has passed. The poor woman finds herself in dire straits, with her four children in Pakistan. It is important that decisions on travel are made by the appropriate courts of law and that we do not issue passports before a decision is taken; that is the normal situation. To do so could be seen as pre-empting court decisions, or assisting one parent to move the children before the courts have reached a decision on travel. Furthermore, a court order forbids the removal of the children from the jurisdiction of Pakistan without permission from the Pakistani court.
	We appreciate the family's frustration about the lack of progress in the case; the hon. Gentleman told us very clearly about that. I stress again that the British Government cannot interfere in the judicial systems of other countries, but I am not sure that that is what the hon. Gentleman is asking us to do; I think that he is asking us to do something rather different. We can and will express our concerns to the Pakistani judiciary at the highest levels at the lack of progress in the resolution of such cases, making reference to the undertaking signed by the judiciary in 2003.
	The British high commissioner in Islamabad is aware of the issues, and this week spoke to the protocol liaison judge, Justice Khokhar, a member of the Supreme Court. The high commissioner did not discuss individual cases, but expressed our concern that cases in Pakistan are not being resolved quickly in the best interests of the children. Justice Khokar promised to look into the matter with the district courts, and was concerned that cases were not being handled expeditiously.
	The protocol works in many cases, and we would much prefer to have it in place than not, but there are cases where the protocol has not immediately been seen to help, and the case in question is just such a case. We have raised our concerns, but it remains a matter for the courts in Pakistan to decide. We hope that the conference that we plan to hold in Pakistan next year, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, will be a real opportunity to examine the functioning of the protocol and to look for practical improvements, but that is months away, and the hon. Gentleman clearly described the dilemma that faces Mrs. Akhtar and her family, who are in the UK, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
	We have discussed whether giving replacement passports or adequate travel documents for the children to Mrs. Akhtar would help in resolving the case more quickly. I understand that there have been discussions with the Pakistani deputy high commissioner and the hon. Gentleman. The deputy high commissioner confirmed that he had passed on to the hon. Gentleman advice that he had received from Mrs. Akhtar's lawyer, and that if the passports were handed on, it would not jeopardise the case and might even help it.
	The family court in Rawalpindi has awarded temporary custody of the children to Mrs. Akhtar. It stipulated that the children must not be taken out of the country without the permission of the court. We will be happy to give a letter to the mother, Mrs. Akhtar, saying that once the court gives permission for the children to leave Pakistan, we will issue the passports immediately.
	However, I know that the hon. Gentleman feels that there is another way of dealing with the matter. As we heard, he offered to travel to Pakistan if he believed that that would help and after he had discussed the matter with the various authorities, to try to move this distressing case forward. I want to ensure that he will have access to the appropriate officials so that the implications of his plan can be examined properly. I know that he feels that the welfare of Asma and her children counts most. We share that view deeply. We will attempt to help the hon. Gentleman in whatever way we can. I am not giving him an undertaking that his plan can be agreed by the Foreign Office, but we will look at it closely and sympathetically.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Six o'clock.